Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATHS OF MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the deaths of Capt. Henry Kerby, Member for Arundel and Shoreham, and of George Jeger, esquire, Member for Goole, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Primary School Building

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now list the additional allocations to each education authority for primary school building.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): My right hon. Friend has asked education authorities for their proposals by 1st March. He will allocate the extra £4 million which is being made available for primary school building starting in 1972–73 when he has considered the projects that are proposed.

Mr. Eadie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the Answer, but would he not agree that the amount of the financial allocation which local education authorities in Scotland have been led to believe they are likely to receive only tinkers with the problem? What response has he had from education authorities about this matter?

Mr. Taylor: I think that most education authorities are very glad indeed to have the extra finance made available to them. Although the hon. Gentleman says that the financial allocation tinkers with the problem, I remind him that it is additional to the allocations made only about a year ago by the previous Government.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will all the schools built prior to and in 1903 be replaced from the extra money being made available to local authorities?

Mr. Taylor: It is impossible to say because the condition of schools varies, apart from the date when they were built. Some old schools are in a very sound condition and have been modernised and improved. I cannot give any assurance, but the extra money will certainly make things easier for local authorities in Scotland.

Housing Subsidies

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to make a statement giving details of his discussions with local authorities on housing subsidies.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Discussions started on 8th January, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development met the local authority associations. At this stage I have no further statement to make.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern in Scotland about the lack of information on the Government's financial policy for housing? We learn more from the Press than we learn in the House. When is the Working Party likely to report and what are its precise terms of reference? The right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to give this information.

Mr. Campbell: I learned from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development that the meeting on 8th January covered a wide range of subjects. The Working Party will report as soon as it can. On the question of information, I can only say that hon. Members opposite must be either illiterate or deaf because I have given replies on this subject on at least three occasions in the last two months.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Secretary of State intend to consult the new town development corporations? Does he not recognise that if there is a decrease in housing subsidies it will hit very hard the tenants of houses in new towns where they have not the rates to fall back on?

Mr. Campbell: That confirms what I have just said. In three replies in the last two months to Questions in the House I have categorically stated that the present subsidies are to be not reduced but redirected. The aim is not to reduce the present amount. I shall be having consultations with the new town corporations.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that local authorities in Scotland are alarmed that £10 or £20 million is to be cut from the general subsidy? That is the import of the last statement on the matter. Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is very important that a White Paper on this subject should be published at once or as soon as possible? Approvals and submissions to the Department are falling at a catastrophic rate because local authorities are alarmed by the right hon. Gentleman's proposals.

Mr. Campbell: The proceedings and the discussions are, of course, confidential, but the information which the hon. Gentleman has given is wrong, for there is no proposal to cut the present amount of housing subsidies. That is the savings which it is intended will be obtained by the mid-seventies. If the previous system had continued the amount would have escalated, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should know, and they would, undoubtedly, have changed it. As regards—

Dr. Dickson Mabon: What about a White Paper?

Mr. Campbell: As for the suggestion about a White Paper, I will consider it when the present negotiations, which are confidential, are completed. They will be carried out as soon as possible. There was no sign, when my hon. Friend had those discussions last week, of any alarm among local authorities.

Rossend Castle

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gourlay—Question No. 3.

Mr. Gourlay: Before I ask my Question, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to extend to you my warmest congratulations on your election to the Chair. As a former Deputy Speaker, I think I can appreciate better than most Members the onerous task you have now undertaken, and I wish you good health in performing your duties in the future.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Burntisland Town Council regarding the future of Rossend Castle; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. Friend has received no formal representations from the Town Council. Rossend Castle is listed as a building of special architectural or historic interest, and any proposals for demolishing it or altering its character will be subject to the procedures laid down in Part V of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1969.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that Rossend Castle was technically demolished, and would have been actually demolished but for an engineering fault in the equipment, before the Minister was given the power by Parliament to invoke these powers which he has now been given in practice? Is he not ashamed to have allowed himself to be pressurised by his political friends and other oddities in Scotland to preserve everything Mary Queen of Scots looked at or Bonnie Prince Charlie sat on, and will he now respect the wishes of the majority of the people of Burntisland and withdraw this Order from this crumbling ruin?

Mr. Younger: I do not think that either Mary Queen of Scots or Bonnie Prince Charlie was involved in this building, but I would say to the hon. Gentleman that the only purpose of the action which my right hon. Friend has taken with regard to this building is to ensure its protection for such time as is


necessary to establish whether there is the possibility of a viable scheme to preserve it. That is the sole purpose of the action taken.

Probation Service

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Brewis—Question No. 4.

Mr. Brewis: Before I ask my Question, Mr. Speaker, may I reciprocate from this side the good wishes to you expressed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay)?

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many probation officers are in service in Scotland; and how this compares with 1968.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Since local authorities in Scotland assumed responsibility for probation in November, 1969, as part of their responsibility for social work, no social workers have been designated as probation officers. In December, 1968, there were 279 probation officers.

Mr. Brewis: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the working of the Social Work Act, and that there are sufficient properly qualified people to do the work of the courts now that the Act is in operation?

Mr. Taylor: There have been difficulties in some areas due to staff shortages, but these are being gradually overcome by measures which have been taken to increase the number of trained social workers. Over 1,000 full-time social workers are now employed by local authorities, but no central record is kept of how many actually undertake probation as part of their duties.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the Under-Secretary please give us some indication of when he will activate that Section of the Act which will bring into operation children's hearings?

Mr. Taylor: I indicated previously that it was our intention that the new arrangements would start at about the beginning of April, and it is my hope and intention to adhere to this programme.

Mr. Carmichael: The Minister has mentioned recruiting. Will he keep this point before him, because one of the problems just now is that so many of the social workers, particularly probation

officers, have such very heavy case loads that it does not allow them to use their talents and training to the best? We need a great increase in the number of trained social workers, and I should like to hear from him that he will in future take steps to increase the number of trained people in this field.

Mr. Taylor: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman said, but I think he knows that the Government have indicated their concern for expanding social work by the fact that it is the fastest growing social service in Scotland at present so far as finance is concerned.

Electricity Supplies

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to secure adequate electricity supplies during the winter months.

Mr. Younger: I understand from the Electricity Boards that supplies should be adequate to meet the estimated maximum demand in Scotland, assuming normal winter weather and normal working in the industry.

Mr. Brewis: I am very glad to hear that reply. Would my hon. Friend consider publishing the rules to which people work when they are working to rule, so that the public can judge whether men are working to rule or are on strike?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that a certain amount of puzzlement was to be noticed among the public as to what were those rules, in particular. I can tell him that, due to the results of the work-to-rule which took place last month, we are, with the Electricity Boards concerned, looking into emergency arrangements necessary for maintaining supplies at times like that.

New Factories

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the number of new factories he has been invited to open in Scotland in 1971.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have so far received four invitations to ceremonies concerned with the opening of new factories in 1971, three of which I have been able to accept.

Mr. Hunter: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that had it not been for the effective regional policies of the last Administration he would not be performing at those functions? Would he, in addition, while looking forward to carrying out those pleasant duties, not give more attention to the present series of closures and partial closures of factories in Scotland and try to reverse this trend?

Mr. Campbell: I would not necessarily accept the first point which the hon. Gentleman made—

Mr. Ross: Why not?

Mr. Campbell: —because the policies of the last four years have led to extremely high unemployment in Scotland this winter, starting with a figure of 93,000 a few days after we took office—in July, in midsummer. It is for this reason that we are changing the policies in order to get the longer-term prospects better.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that in my constituency there is an advance factory which was completed by the last Government and which was ready for occupation in July, although there are very few signs that there will be any incoming tenant for it? Will he give me some assurance that it will not remain a mock of the good endeavours of the last Government, or an indication of the failure of this Government to attract industry to Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: Is the hon. Member aware of another factory sitting idle in my constituency—and sitting idle for three years—and that I was busy trying to get the last Government to do something about it? Already, in the last six months, we have announced new policies which we are bringing into effect as soon as we can, with the assistance of this House where legislation is required, in order to get the growth and improvement which, I hope, both sides of the House wish to see.

Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that we gave him a legacy of about 55,000 new jobs through I.D.C.s which had been approved, and which it is too late for him now to refuse, when unemployment is rising, and rising seriously, in Scotland, and that none of those

policies he has announced is doing anything but worsen the situation?

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman gave us a legacy of 93,000 unemployed in Scotland in midsummer. As regards I.D.C.s, the I.D.C.s in Scotland within 12 months from June, 1969, to June, 1970, before we came into office, reflected a reduction of 34 per cent. in jobs against the previous 12 months.

New Roads (Opening Ceremonies)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland for how many new roads in Scotland he has been invited to perform the opening ceremony in 1971; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: Completion of four new trunk road or bridge schemes of sufficient importance to justify opening ceremonies of this kind are envisaged this year and my right hon. Friend is likely to be available to open two of them. In addition, he has so far been invited to open one new local authority scheme.

Mr. Hunter: Does not the Minister agree that this is another highlight in the progressive road-building programme followed by the Labour Government? Will he assure the House that this progress will be maintained?

Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman looks into this, he will find that virtually all these programmes were set out originally in the White Paper produced by the last Conservative Government in 1963. The only thing that makes me slightly sorry is that the previous Government were not able to get on with the programme faster than they did.

Mr. Sillars: Will the Minister tell us whether one of the new roads to be opened in 1971 will be the Ayr bypass? If either the Secretary of State or the Minister performs the opening ceremony, will a promise be given to the people in that area that the bypass will become a dual carriageway road within 12 months?

Mr. Younger: I very much hope that the road mentioned by the hon. Member will be one of those to be opened this year. The type of road that is being built was laid down by his right hon. Friend before I came to office and it is quite impossible for me to alter it at this stage.

Mr. MacArthur: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether it is his intention to organise an opening ceremony for the Edinburgh—Perth motorway when it is completed one year sooner than planned by the Labour Government'?

Mr. Younger: I certainly hope that it will now be possible to achieve the completion of the M90 motorway to Perth in 1975 instead of 1976 as was proposed by the previous Administration, and I also hope that there will be an opening ceremony appropriate to the occasion.

Industrial and Military Sports Facilities

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he is making for the use of industrial and military sports facilities by the whole community.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The use by the general public of industrial sports facilities in Scotland is being considered by the Sports Council for Scotland, and the Government have been examining the possibility of extending the public use of Service sports facilities in Great Britain as a whole. The extent to which such sports facilities are made available to the general public has been increasing and I hope to see a continued improvement.

Mr. Dalyell: When will the examination be complete?

Mr. Taylor: This matter is being constantly considered. It is not a question of a particular report coming forward. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that facilities are made available to as wide a section of the public as possible.

Drug-taking

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he is making of drug-taking among school pupils.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The subcommittee of the Consultative Committee of Medical Officers of Health, whose report on drug misuse in Scotland was issued last May, has been reconvened and will keep this matter under review.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to thank the Secretary of State for allowing me to discuss this subject in depth with his

senior medical advisers and civil servants, but what is meant by "under constant review"?

Mr. Taylor: What is meant is that we have decided to reconvene this committee so that advice will be made available to us on which action can be taken whenever appropriate.

Housing

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has now received from local authorities in regard to his inquiry about outstanding housing needs in Scotland; and how many houses were completed in the last quarter of 1970.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: So far I have received replies from 141 local authorities in response to my request for information about their housing lists and housing needs, and these are being analysed. Provisionally, about 10,500 houses were completed in the last quarter of 1970.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Secretary of State say how the figure for 1970 compares with that for 1969? Will he also say why the previous analyses which were made of Glasgow's housing needs, particularly those in my division of Govan, were not utilised in the inquiries which he has instituted? This would have helped to speed up the solution to the abominable housing conditions in Glasgow.

Mr. Campbell: The figures for December can be only provisional, and there is another Question on the first point put by the hon. Gentleman. It looks as though in 1970 there is likely to have been a record for allocations of houses in Glasgow and also a record for improvements of older housing. We are aiming at the best combination of such programmes with house building, to provide housing where and in the form in which it is most needed.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Can we take it from what the Secretary of State has said about 1970 being another record year—thanks to the last Labour Government—that there will be the same devotion to the achievement of records as the Under-Secretary of State promised on the last day of the Session before Christmas, namely, a target of 50,000? Will he include that in his White Paper?

Mr. Campbell: No such target was given in my hearing, and that will no doubt be looked up in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There was a considerable drop in approvals and starts in house building about a year before we took office. This may have been a positive policy by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. But we certainly regard as important the other parts of the housing programme, namely, slum clearance, improvements and allocation of houses, as well as house building.

Scottish Office (Economic Advisory Section)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the functions of the Economic Advisory Section in the Scottish Office.

Mr. Oswald: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the names of his economic advisers.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I draw, for economic advice, upon a wide range of sources: economists employed in the various departments of the Scottish Office, including those in the recently formed Economic and Statistics Unit: my Economic Consultants, a panel of Professors of Economics from the Universities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Strathclyde who, together with my Consultant on industrial matters, meet monthly in St. Andrew's House; and, of course, the members of the Scottish Economic Council.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply, but does he not concur that what is wrong with the Scottish economy is not the inadequacy or the quality of the economic advice offered to him but his insufficiency in carrying out the good advice? Will he do something about the malaise into which the Scottish economy is getting, and not present to the Scottish people a series of petty and spurious excuses?

Mr. Campbell: I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are doing something about the malaise in which we found the Scottish economy on arrival in office. That is the reason for the changes, amongst others, announced at the end of October. We are continuing a review of the previous system so as to avoid the stagnation

and high unemployment which we found on arrival in office.

Mr. MacArthur: When my right hon. Friend makes his economic studies, will he consider by what process of planning his predecessor was able to promise the people of Scotland 60,000 extra jobs by 1970 and succeed in losing 82,000?

Mr. Campbell: I certainly am not above trying to learn from other people's mistakes, but I intend to concentrate on the future.

Mr. Ross: Can the Secretary of State tell us when we shall see this improvement?

Mr. Campbell: I hope during 1971.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Secretary of State agree that there are frequently occasions upon which the degree of squeeze which may be appropriate to England is wholly inappropriate to Scotland? Are his advisers considering proposing various economic and financial measures to suit the differences between the English and Scottish economies?

Mr. Campbell: These matters and others are all considered by the advisers, and I receive their advice. There is no shortage of advice, but, as the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me probably found, it sometimes conflicts.

Scottish Council, Development and Industry

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of the Government's financial support to the Scottish Council, Development and Industry.

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to set up a national body to co-ordinate approaches by the increasing number of Scottish organisations, to attract foreign industrialists to Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development is discussing with the Scottish Council and other bodies concerned how the arrangements for promoting Scotland as an industrial location can be extended and made more effective. I am considering what Government assistance might be given towards the cost of a satisfactory scheme for this purpose.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply, but does he not agree that there are dangers in a body like the Scottish Council, which is independent and has acted as a valuable sounding board for policy, being brought too much into the governmental orbit? We do not want the situation to arise from this that the Government withdraw from their rightful rôle of attracting new industry to Scotland.

Mr. Campbell: I believe that this is a partnership in which the Government have a rôle to play and in which a promotional body for Scotland also has a rôle, working in association with the Government, and it is with that in view that these discussions are taking place.

Mr. Sproat: I welcome the plans mentioned by my right hon. Friend, but will he assure the House that the regional and local work which has supplied so much of the dynamic in the past will not be stifled by any new agency but will be more productively canalised?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend has hit on another of the matters which must be resolved. We wish to make the best use of the regional efforts and at the same time to make sure that they are co-ordinated, do not compete with each other and do not conflict.

Manufacturing Industry (Development)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals the Highlands and Islands Development Board have made to him involving changes of policy towards the development of manufacturing industry; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Younger: The Board has not proposed any fundamental changes of policy towards manufacturing industry in the Highlands. However, it has proposed that it should build advance factories and my right hon. Friend has now authorised it to undertake a limited programme of this kind.

Mr. Maclennan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Has his right hon. Friend authorised the building of the full programme which was recommended of some 16 advance factories in the Highlands? Could he say whether the lack of change in fundamental

approach means that the present Board and Government endorse the broad strategy of concentrating on large-scale industrial developments in the three areas of Lochaber, the Moray Firth and Wick and Thurso?

Mr. Younger: In regard to the first part of the question, we are now urgently discussing with the Board the choice of locations for the first advance factories in the programme and also the number that it will be appropriate to authorise in the first place. On the second part of the question, the new Board and the present Government endorse the work of the previous Board, and although I have not yet had an opportunity of meeting the new Board, when I do so I hope to discuss with them the matters mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his statement will bring great pleasure to the Highlands of Scotland. Has he or the Board received any inquiries in connection with advance factories of this type?

Mr. Younger: The Board has found from time to time that in its opinion it would be valuable if it had power to build advance factories, and although it has not had any inquiries with specific references to the announcement which I have just made, it no doubt will bear them in mind in the future.

Highlands and Islands (Land Use)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received from the Highlands and Islands Development Board relating to the improvement of land use in the Highlands and Islands; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has received no formal proposals of this kind from the Board.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are conflicts between the interests in different land uses in the Highlands and that the exclusivity of the sporting estate is much resented? Has he any proposals for improving the land use, particularly to allow more people to use those facilities and to improve the agricultural use of the hills and uplands in that area?

Mr. Younger: This is a matter on which it is primarily for the Board to produce proposals. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has been conducting land use studies in the Strath of Kildonan and on the Isle of Mull. We are looking forward to receiving from the Board the results of those studies.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people hope that the Board will in fact use its powers in regard to land, since there is little point in having teeth if you keep them on the mantelpiece?

Mr. Younger: No doubt the new Board will bear this matter in mind. I know that the new Board is determined to make a real and worthwhile contribution to develop the Highlands.

Rate Rebates

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the total amount granted in rate rebates, and the number of rate rebates granted in the financial year ended 14th May, 1970 in the county of Fife and in Kirkcaldy, respectively.

Mr. Younger: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that there are many anomalies in administration, particularly in regard to the rate rebate scheme, as between different local authorities in Scotland? Would he consider issuing a standard

Amount of rate rebate 1969–70
Number of recipients 1969–70







1st period
2nd period
Total
1st period
2nd period







£
£
£




Fife (all authorities)
…
…
49,406
49,504
98,910
6,380
6,381


Fife (landward area)
…
…
9,902
9,679
19,581
1,602
1,542


Kirkcaldy
…
…
…
…
11,963
11,695
23,658
1,252
1,228

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ratepayers claimed rebates during the past year on grounds of financial hardship; and what is the average amount granted to each.

Mr. Younger: In 1969–70 rate rebate was granted to about 90,800 domestic

application form for rate rebates? In view of the present rapid rate of inflation, would he now indicate when he proposes to raise the income level at which maximum rebates are payable?

Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the income level for rate rebate was raised fairly recently by the previous Government. In regard to anomalies between areas, I have had no representations that this is so; but if the hon. Gentleman has any specific cases which he would like to raise with me, I shall be happy to look at them.

Mr. John Smith: Would the Minister consider issuing a circular to local authorities asking them to deal with the matter of rate rebate and rent rebate at the same time when application for assistance is made, since many people find it difficult to distinguish between rents and rates? Is not the situation of the poor at present quite ridiculous when one considers the number of applications which they have to make to a myriad of authorities?

Mr. Younger: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is necessary at present for these matters to be dealt with separately since rent rebate and rate rebate apply to different categories of people and tenants. I hope, however, that when the Government's new housing policy comes into effect, there will be less difference between the categories involved and that at that time it may be possible to amalgamate some of the administration.

Following is the information:

ratepayers for the first half-year and to about 91,600 for the second half-year. The average rebate for each half year was £9 14s.

Mr. Galbraith: As the amount of the rebate is relatively small, though welcome, and in view of the acute hardship which rate increases cause old folk


living on small fixed incomes, would my hon. Friend consider making a general rebate to all pensioners?

Mr. Younger: That would be quite a different question and would have to be considered in the course of a general review of social services. As for the effect on ratepayers generally of the increased costs of local authority work, this is one of the reasons, I think, why the previous Administration introduced the rate rebate scheme.

Teachers, Lanark

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the shortage of teachers in technical subjects in the county of Lanark that will result from the raising of the school-leaving age in 1972.

Mr. Edward Taylor: It is not possible for my right hon. Friend to make such estimates since he cannot predict the relative success of particular authorities in recruiting additional teachers. He is, however, asking the Education Authority to let the hon. Member have such information as it has about the demand for additional teachers of technical subjects.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Under-Secretary of State not recognise that at present Lanarkshire is short of about 30 technical teachers? Is he aware that some of the pupils in some areas are not taking 0-level examinations and higher certificates because of the shortage of teachers? Will he also recognise that by 1972 there will be greater emphasis on technical education? Although it is partly a matter for the local authorities, does he not think that it is time that the Government made their own plans?

Mr. Taylor: I was made fully aware by Lanarkshire authority during my recent visit of the severe problems in this respect. This is one of the reasons that we are making every endeavour to ensure a fairer distribution of teachers throughout Scotland.

North-East of Scotland

Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the continuing decline in the population of the North-East of Scotland

through migration; and what steps he proposes to reverse this trend.

Mr. Younger: The rate of decline in the population of North-East Scotland has slackened since 1967 and over the last two years the population has been virtually stable. My right hon. Friend has told the local authorities that he will support them in pursuing the strategy and main objectives of the Gaskin Report.

Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The statistics are extremely confusing. It would be a great help to the public discussion that goes on in the North-East on this subject if my right hon. Friend could publish the statistics on this matter and also his own long-term aims to stop rural depopulation.

Mr. Younger: I will see what can be done to help my hon. Friend with his request for statistics; I agree that it is necessary for people to have them. In regard to the North-East in general, I wish to pay tribute to the most impressive work done by the North-East of Scotland Development Association and also to the work carried out by the local authorities in the area which have made a fine effort to pull together at this time.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give credit where it is due and confirm that the reason for the slacking off in migration from Scotland was the policies of the last Government? Will he not accept that bodies like the North-East of Scotland Development Association are very much concerned that the kind of economic policy being pursued by the present Government will reverse this trend and will lead us back to the old days of mass migration from the North-East of Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The question of migration generally is a wide one, but the picture over the last five years has been of a great decrease in migration within the United Kingdom because of the fact that under the previous Government's policy it was made less attractive to go to England.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Minister aware that successive studies have shown that our problems of migration in the North-East are fairly standard, with similar trends throughout the rest of the


country, but that our difficulty has lain in succeeding in attracting new immigrants into the region? It is in that context that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) is so welcome in his area.

Mr. Younger: I agree with what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his question. This is why I am so encouraged at the efforts being made by people in the North-East to encourage others to come into the area and to help the situation.

Mr. Ross: Would it not be only fair for the hon. Gentleman to take back all he said in 1966? He then said that the migration problem would become worse, instead of which it has become better. The fact is that we managed to halve the migration rate. Why does he not seek to get everybody's co-operation in Scotland to improve the situation? Has there been any worsening of the trend?

Mr. Younger: I certainly hope, as would the right hon. Gentleman, that the migration figures could not conceivably have got worse than they were in 1967, which was the worst year for a very long time. I welcome very much the fact that they have now got better and I only wish that the unemployment position were better, too.

Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the recommendation of the Gaskin Report that the location in the North East of some of the offices of Central Government should be given serious consideration; and what action he proposes.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am well aware of the facilities which the North East of Scotland, and other areas, can offer for additional public sector employment. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I will make sure these facilities are given full consideration whenever locations are being decided for new or transferred Government work.

Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. It would appear that this is an opportunity for creating employment by direct Government initiative, as opposed to encouraging industrialists and others to bring their goods into our part of the world.

As it is very much in the gift of Government to take these measures, I hope that he will be extremely strong in pressing these points over the next few months.

Mr. Campbell: The recent White Paper on the reorganisation of central Government stated that we intend to pursue a policy of dispersing Government offices from London. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that I was a member of the Government who decided to move the National Savings Bank to Scotland, so I know what can be done.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In view of this comparative success in the North-East, has the Secretary of State any intention, following the precedents of previous Conservative Governments, to de-schedule any part of the area and exempt it from the advantages of the development area grants, or whatever other benefits his Government may achieve?

Mr. Campbell: I am considering it in the light of the Gaskin Report, which we are not sure that the previous Government accepted. It proposed two growth areas, and there was some doubt whether the previous Government acknowledged that as a method. I am studying the needs of the area and what can be done in future in the light of that Report and other advice.

Motor Accidents (Impaired Vision)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage of motor accidents where impaired vision was a contributory cause.

Mr. Younger: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Galbraith: Would it not be possible for my hon. Friend to find this out? The increase in the number of accidents is a matter for concern. May it not well be that, as people grow older, their eyesight should be tested in the same way as the mechanical facilities of their cars are tested?

Mr. Younger: I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says, but this is strictly a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for the conditions upon which driving licences are issued. On the particular point, I


think that my hon. Friend may agree that it would be difficult to expect anyone at the site of an accident to express an opinion whether the accident was due to defective eyesight in a driver concerned, as that is not assessable without a detailed medical opinion.

Soil Structure (Research)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that there are in Scotland adequate facilities for research into soil structure; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Yes, Sir. Different aspects of this research are covered by the Agricultural Colleges and Research Institutes in Scotland and there is also full and free access to information arising from research in England and Wales.

Sir J. Gilmour: Would my hon. Friend say, in view of the Report published today affecting England and Wales, "Modern Farming and the Soil", which has shown a great need to increase drainage, whether an adequate survey has been made of drainage requirements in Scotland? Second, also in view of what this Report says—that soils cannot be expected to maintain the intensive farming systems imposed on them because of the squeeze on farmers' incomes—is he satisfied that he is right to acquiesce in the British Sugar Corporation's closure of the sugar beet factory at Cupar?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend about the question of drainage. On the second part of his question, about a break crop in Scotland, I would remind him that sugar beet is not the only break crop in Scotland; temporary grass is a major crop. Also the English Report says that there are problems of soil structure in beet-growing areas in England.

Mr. Dalyell: What conclusions has the Scottish Office drawn from the parlous situation of soil over-use in Northamptonshire, North Oxfordshire and other English counties?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is what the question was about. The Report which

my hon. Friend mentioned has implications for Scotland. We shall be studying them in that light.

Scottish Inshore Fishing Fleet

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase has taken place in the last three years in the amount of fish landed by the Scottish Inshore Fishing Fleet; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There has over the period been a 23 per cent. increase in landings by weight and 26 per cent. by value.

Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the fact that we are now reaping the benefit of the extension of fishery limits which took place during the last Conservative Administration, would my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to publish the figures of landings in the countries of the European Economic Community during the same period, so that we can judge whether their catches, in their territorial waters, are going up or down?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Questions of statistics in the countries of Europe are for those countries, but in relation to the Common Market we have entirely reserved our position on fisheries and have made representations to the Common Market about its own policy.

Mr. Maclennan: In view of these satisfactory figures which the Minister has reported, would he not agree that they show how right were the previous Government in increasing the grants available for the acquisition of new fishing vessels, and how wrong was the decision of the present Government, taken apparently for doctrinaire reasons, to align fishing with manufacturing industry in cutting those grants by 10 per cent.?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is another Question on this point on the Order Paper. In 1966, in dealing with the question of investment grants, the hon. Gentleman's Government also dealt with fishing questions at the same time. What we did was a similar thing in the other direction.

Following is the information:

The landings in Scotland by the Scottish inshore fleet were:

in 1968—5,070,090 cwts., valued at £14,923,910;

in 1969—5,913,949 cwts., valued at £16,688,784;

in 1970—figures for December are not yet available, but including an estimated figure for this month, the landings for the whole year would be 6,236,784 cwts., valued at £18,760,902.

Local Government Finance

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to lay before Parliament his proposals for the reform of local government finance in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: It is proposed that a Green Paper extending to Great Britain as a whole will be presented later this year.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: May I take it, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's protestations in opposition, that this Green Paper will precede a paper on the Wheatley reforms of local government in Scotland and the Government's comments on them? Since the right hon. Gentleman promised that White Paper on local government reform in Scotland very soon—I believe this month—may I take it that the Green Paper will be published within the next few days?

Mr. Campbell: Last February, in the debate on the Wheatley Report in the Scottish Grand Committee, the hon. Gentleman will remember, his right hon. Friend informed me, after I had pressed him two or three times, that this study on finance had begun, and that a Green Paper of this kind would be published. He then said that it would be published some time after the White Paper. When we came to office we found that the financial study had gone so far that it was right for us to allow it to be completed. My White Paper on the reform of local government should be available soon.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Very disappointing.

Mr. Campbell: It is disappointing as a result of the programmes of the last Government.

New Industry (West Central Scotland)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional money he is providing for promotional campaigns in 1971 to attract new industry to West Central Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I welcome the initiatives being taken to establish a promotional organisation in West Central Scotland and the response which local authorities and other bodies have so far made to these initiatives. It is right that the finance and other resources for these regional efforts should come from the regions concerned, but I am considering what Government assistance might be given to measures for the promotion of Scotland as a whole which could be linked with these regional efforts.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is it not the case that neither of those Answers adds anything to the information which we already have and that it is important that we know how much money is involved in this—just as important as it is to know how the financial reforms in local government will affect the structural reforms?

Mr. Campbell: I answered an earlier Question about the possibility of finance for the Scottish Council from the point of view of Scotland as a whole. From the point of view of Scotland West, I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Robin MacLellan, President of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, and the Lord Provost, Sir Donald Liddle, on their initiative in this matter and on the success which they have already had.

Primary School Classes (Lanarkshire)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of primary school classes in Lanarkshire with more than 40 pupils.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I am asking the education authority to send the latest available information to the hon. Member.

Mr. Hamilton: In being told that the local authority concerned will send me the details, are we seeing a new trend on the part of Conservative Administrations? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities sometimes take as long as 11 weeks to reply to letters from hon.


Members? Does he not feel that when an hon. Member tables a Question in this House he should be given a reply by the Minister responsible?
As for my Question, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the E.I.S., which is the main organisation representing the teaching profession, is making a strong plea for primary school classes not to exceed 30 pupils? May we be assured that the good work that was done by the Labour Government in this matter will be continued by the Conservatives and that more primary school teachers will be obtained?

Mr. Taylor: The recruitment of teachers is the responsibility of the local authority concerned and that is why I am asking it to send the latest available information to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that there will be no undue delay.
As for the general supply of teachers, the position is improving in primary schools. This year about 2,500 primary school teachers left colleges of education compared with only 1,400 five years ago. A further improvement is expected. I hope that the measures which we have taken to improve distribution will ensure that a good number of these teachers will go to Lanarkshire, where I agree they are needed.

School-leaving Age

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will refuse applications made to him by education authorities for him to take steps to relieve them of their obligation to raise the school-leaving age to 16 years.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The Secretary of State has no power under existing legislation to approve any such applications.

Mr. Rankin: Has the hon. Genleman forgotten that in 1963 the then Conservative Government decided to raise the school-leaving age in Scotland to 16? Now that the Conservatives are back in power, when is that promise likely to be honoured? Now that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have a chance to honour it, what do they intend to do? Will he resist, when he starts doing something about it, any appeals that may be made by local authorities to get out of accepting the Government's will in this

matter? May we be assured that such authorities will be told that they must follow Government policy?

Mr. Taylor: I indicated at a recent meeting in Glasgow that it was the Government's present intention to go ahead with arrangements for raising the school-leaving age by the due date. It is not fair, therefore, for hon. Gentlemen opposite to make accusations on this question of the school-leaving age when, as they know from previous Answers, that it is anticipated that there will be a shortage of more than 3,000 secondary school teachers by the planned date for raising the school-leaving age.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter of the school-leaving age on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

European Economic Community

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received from the Scottish inshore fishing industry regarding current negotiations with the European Economic Community.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster received a deputation from the Scottish inshore fishermen's associations on 15th December.

Mr. Sproat: While my hon. Friend may not have received any further representations in the meantime, that does not mean that the inshore fishing industry is satisfied. On the contrary, it believes that the present E.E.C. plans would not merely cause the industry great difficulty but would mean its death within a couple of years. May we be given specific examples of the care that is being taken, rather than general assurances?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am entirely aware of the concern that is felt within the inshore fishing industry and I repeat my assurance that we have entirely reserved our position about fisheries. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to declare our negotiating position in advance while these difficult negotiations are going on.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is resentment growing in Scotland about the possible effects of our joining the E.E.C.? Will he seek to obtain Scottish opinion not only about the fishing industry but about, for example, the coal and steel industries in relation to the future of the people of Scotland should we join the Community?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Question relates to fishing. I trust that the hon. Gentleman heard me twice give an assurance about our negotiating position in relation to fisheries. I trust that he is not so naive as to think that we could declare the exact details of our negotiating position in advance.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does my hon. Friend realise that the best way to solve this difficulty and at the same time to give protection to our fishing industry would be to keep out of the Common Market altogether and to abandon the negotiations?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes. Another way is to negotiate.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Central Policy Review Staff

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a further statement on the Central Policy Review Staff.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 17th December.—[Vol. 808, c. 446.]

Mr. Sheldon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of constitutional matters arise as a result of the setting up of the Central Policy Review Staff? Will he at least undertake to keep the House fully informed and not to apply secrecy to this important new development? When shall we be told how many members of this staff will be dealing with matters concerning economic policy? May we be given information about further appointments that are being made?

Mr. Howell: I accept that there are important implications arising from this development and I undertake to see that the House is fully informed at the appropriate time as developments take place. It is too early yet to give the hon. Gentleman the information which he seeks in the remainder of his supplementary question.

Peterlee (Government Offices)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will transfer the offices of a Government Department to Peterlee.

Mr. David Howell: We shall consider Peterlee, along with other places in development areas, as a possible location for a dispersed Government office both under the study announced in the White Paper on the Reorganisation of Central Government, Cmnd. 4506, and as cases arise apart from the study.

Mr. Dormand: In giving a cautious welcome to that Answer, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that the substantial incentives which were offered in the policy of the Labour Government failed to achieve the level and type of employment that the area needs? Is he aware that the policies of the present Government are exacerbating the position? Does he agree that action of the kind I am suggesting is imperative when one has a rising unemployment level of 6·5 per cent., which is the position in the area now?

Mr. Howell: I do not accept the second proposition and I assure the hon. Gentleman that areas of high unemployment will be given sympathetic consideration. I cannot, however, give a specific commitment in relation to Peterlee at this stage.

Pay Increases

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will give either actual figures or an estimate of the cost to public funds of the pay increases to higher civil servants and chairmen of nationalised boards since October, 1964.

Mr. David Howell: The estimated cost to the end of 1970, for the higher Civil Service and chairmen of the main nationalised industry boards, is about £3½ million.

Mr. Lewis: May we be told why, when these civil servants and higher-paid State employees receive a 62 per cent. increase in two-and-a-half years, this appears to the Government not to be inflationary while a 10 per cent. increase for lower-paid workers appears to be inflationary? May we be given figures of the actual increases that have taken place during this period for these employees?

Mr. Howell: I am not sure that I accept all of the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic. These increases, of course, flowed from the recommendations of the Plowden Committee, which were put forward when the Labour Party were in power, and represent increases covering a period of years. They must, therefore, be seen in that light.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend accept the relevance of my supplementary question, which is that it is excessively difficult to seek to limit an increase in pay for power workers to 10 per cent. when the heads of the industry in which these men are working receive increases in pay of seven or eight times that amount, utterly without justification?

Mr. Howell: I see the relevance of my hon. Friend's supplementary question but not its validity, because these increases cover a number of years. When one sees the matter in that light, one sees a fairer and more sensible picture.

Overtime

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister for the Civil Service to what extent industrial and other civil servants are engaged on overtime; and what action he is taking to reduce such overtime.

Mr. David Howell: Overtime varies from Department to Department and according to the nature and volume of the work. Individual Departments and their local managements decide what overtime is necessary; they are under standing instructions to keep it to the minimum. A number of the productivity agreements now operating in the industrial Civil Service provide for a reduction in overtime.

Mr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Has not a committee recently been looking into the subject of overtime generally both in

industry and in the Civil Service? That being so, will not the Government take action to see that overtime is cut in the services for which they are responsible?

Mr. Howell: There has been the Prices and Incomes Board Report on overtime to which the hon. Gentleman, I think, is referring. We are watching very carefully the matter as it relates to the Civil Service. We are seeking to reduce overtime. In all Departments this is the view and the policy being followed.

MINISTER'S HOME (EXPLOSION)

Mr. Callaghan: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the explosion at the home of the Secretary of State for Employment.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I have received a preliminary report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. It appears that shortly after 10 p.m. yesterday an explosion occurred outside my right hon. Friend's home, doing serious damage. The police were summoned. Shortly after their arrival a second device exploded. My right hon. Friend and the police officers were able to take cover and I am happy to tell the House that no one was injured in either explosion. But this came about only through great good fortune. The extent of the damage done to the house indicates the power and lethal character of the devices employed.
The police are making widespread inquiries, but clearly I cannot yet express any views about the precise origin of the explosions or the motives of those who planted the devices. Arrangements made for the protection of members of the Government are being urgently reviewed.
I am confident that every Member of the House would wish to join in unreserved condemnation of this crime. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am also sure that I would be reflecting the feeling of the House as a whole in expressing our sympathy with my right hon. Friend and his family in this most


unpleasant experience and our relief that they were physically unharmed.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. May I express, as he knows, the fact that in the House there is no division at all in this matter? We are as delighted as anyone else, not only that the Home Secretary's right hon. Friend escaped, but that Mrs. Carr and the family were unharmed—because, as all of us know, it is our wives who have to take the brunt of this sort of outrage, which, fortunately, is almost unique in this country.
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware—though this I am sure he already knows—that it is our profound hope that those who have committed this outrage will be brought to justice at the earliest possible moment; and that the whole of the country will know that there can be no success attending anyone who attempts to influence opinion in any way by means of this sort? That kind of approach is utterly discredited and will receive no support from anyone at all.

Mr. Maudling: I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Home Secretary aware that the whole House will wish to be associated with what he and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) have said? Indeed, I congratulate the Minister concerned and his family on the very calm and cool way in which they obviously faced this outrage. Surely the lesson to be learned by everyone is that the opportunity for persuasion lies not in the bomb but in the ballot box, and we await with confidence for the Home Secretary to look into these matters and very much hope that those responsible will be apprehended.

Mr. Maudling: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I can assure him and the House that every possible lesson will be learned from this occurrence and that every effort will be made to bring those responsible to book.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone inside and outside the House who has a true devotion to the democratic system will be

appalled by what has happened and will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on the extraordinary dignity and calm which he exercised on this occasion? May I express the hope that every possible effort will be made by the Home Secretary and the police to find out who is responsible for this outrage and to expose them for the gross traitors that they are?

Mr. Maudling: I believe that the entire House shares the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.

CHANNEL SHIPPING ACCIDENTS

Mr. Costain: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the tanker explosion which occurred in the English Channel off Folkestone on Monday, 11th January.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): At 4.10 a.m. on 11th January the motor vessel "Texaco Caribbean", of 13,604 gross tons, registered in Panama, was in collision six miles off Folkestone with the motor vessel "Paracas", of 9,481 gross tons, registered in Peru. The "Texaco Caribbean" was proceeding down-Channel in ballast for Trinidad and the "Paracas" up-Channel. An explosion occurred in the "Texaco Caribbean" and the vessel was split into two parts, the bow section being submerged at once. Eight men, including the master, were lost. The stern section was abandoned by the remainder of the crew and drifted for some hours before sinking. Twenty men were picked up, and landed at Dover. The "Paracas" was towed to Hamburg. The explosion caused some damage to property in Folkestone and district. At 7.30 a.m. on 12th January the motor vessel "Brandenburg", of 2,695 gross tons, registered in the Federal Republic of Germany, sank in the vicinity of the earlier accident. The "Brandenburg" was bound for Curacao. Eleven of those on board were brought ashore, and 21 are feared dead or missing.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ordered a preliminary inquiry under Section 465 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, into both casualties in order to obtain as much information as


possible. I must emphasise to the House, however, that, since all the vessels concerned are foreign-registered and the casualties took place outside the United Kingdom territorial waters, it would not be appropriate to order a formal investigation. We have approached the Governments of the flag States concerned to seek permission for officials of my Department to attend any inquiries that they may hold.
I should like to express profound sympathy with the relatives of all who have lost their lives, and also express my appreciation of the rescues which were carried out by local fishermen and others.

Mr. Costain: In thanking my hon. Friend for making that statement, may I, on behalf of my constituents who took part in the rescue, say how much they appreciate his remarks; and express sympathy for the relatives of those who lost their lives?
As the inquiry must be limited in scope, will my hon. Friend make special note that those authorities in Folkestone who have expressed concern about the Channel route—a point I made on 27th November—are able and willing to give evidence?
The town clerks of Folkestone and Hythe very much appreciate the help they are being given by Government Departments in minimising oil pollution. May I have an assurance that this help will continue?
Will my hon. Friend's Department advise those of my constituents who have suffered damage on how they can get compensation for it?
Does my hon. Friend realise that the last Government withdrew the helicopter service at Manston which would have been extremely valuable in an accident of this sort? Can I have an assurance that this matter will also be considered?

Mr. Grant: My Department will be prepared to receive evidence and information from anyone who can assist in this inquiry.
As to oil pollution, three tugs fitted with spraying equipment are at present operating from Dover to disperse the fuel oil which is still seeping from the stern section of the "Texaco Caribbean". The work is under the professional control of

officers of my Department, and the spraying equipment is being operated by men of the Royal Corps of Transport.
Helicopters were employed from Thorney Island, and our view is that in this case there would have been very little difference had they come from Manston. The question of the use of helicopters is being considered, and I hope it will be possible to make a statement soon.
With reference to damage sustained by property owners at Folkestone, their first obvious course is to contact their insurers. I am advised that the likelihood is that the normal policy covers such a contingency. We do not know the full extent of the damage that these people have sustained, but if there is other damage of a serious nature which is not covered by insurance, it is not a matter for my Department but probably one for local authorities to discuss with the Department for the Environment.

Mr. Mason: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the Minister's expressions of sympathy for those who lost their lives and his expression of appreciation and praise for the rescues which were carried out by the local fishermen?
The Minister is aware that we are talking about the busiest straits in the world, a highly congested channel with 750 ships passing to and fro every day. Will he tell the House, first, what has happened to the proposal made to him by the pilots that they wish to board these highly lethal vessels—tankers, methane carriers, and so forth—long before they enter the straits so that they can give them better guidance?
Second, what has happened to the proposal made to the Minister by the master mariners and the Elder Brethren of Trinity House who, in the interests of safety, have decreed that it would be better to reverse the flow of traffic in the Channel?
Finally, will he take the initiative now with our Western European maritime neighbours to secure stricter anti-collision rules in the Channel, to establish a regional agreement, and to get the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation to endorse it?

Mr. Grant: There is a number of different views as to the merit or necessity


of having a pilot well outside coastal waters where a pilot's expertise is necessary. I remind the House that the "Pacific Glory" had a pilot on board whom she had taken on from Brixham to take her all the way to Rotterdam, if she had ever reached there. Nevertheless, there is no reason why a vessel cannot take on a pilot voluntarily. For there to be compulsory pilotage would require international agreement and would be difficult to ensure or enforce.
We are well aware that Trinity House has suggested that the traffic lanes should be reversed and that this suggestion has the support of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners and of some pilots, but it is opposed by the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping, the Institute of Navigation, which has investigated the suggestion carefully, and, indeed, by certain European institutes of navigation. I assure the House that the matter is not nearly so simple as has perhaps been posed. Our view is that to change the traffic lanes and put them in the reverse order could create a greater risk than there is at present. Nevertheless, we shall be endeavouring to pursue this matter through I.M.C.O. and we hope in March, after consultation with interests in Britain, to bring modifications of the present scheme before the International Committee.
In our view, a European scheme would not wholly satisfy the problem. We believe that it is best for a wholly international agreement to be made. There would be very great difficulties about enforcing a purely European scheme against countries which were using the straits and were not parties to such an agreement.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the Minister aware that the whole House will wish to join him in his expression of sympathy with those involved in the accident and in his congratulations to those who helped in the rescue operations?
Is the Minister aware also that a Select Committee warned more than two years ago in a published report that 1 in 10 of all sea accidents in the world took place in the Western Approaches and the English Channel? In the light of those accidents and that statistic, is he satisfied that the present traffic regulations are adequate? Does he agree that, if the

recommendation of Trinity House had been in operation, this accident could not have taken place?

Mr. Grant: I must make clear to the hon. Gentleman our view, after studying the question very carefully, that if the Trinity House proposal were in operation it could cause an overall greater danger to shipping and greater dangers of collision than is the present position. This view is reinforced by the views of other very authoritative bodies.
On the question of traffic regulations generally, we are never satisfied that anything is perfect. Indeed, it was the United Kingdom's initiative that caused the Straits of Dover to have the traffic separation scheme and we are again taking the initiative in I.M.C.O. to try to get improvements to this scheme in the meeting in March.

Mr. Murton: In view of the extreme danger which may arise through future collisions in these narrow waters by ships going up and down the Channel, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of proposing to the appropriate international body that there should be a minimum standard in seniority and qualifications for deck officers in navigating, particularly to foreign tanker owners?

Mr. Grant: I recognise that, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, very different standards of skill apply to those operating these vessels. However, as my hon. Friend doubtless realises, this is an international problem and it is important to get international agreement. This is another matter in which the United Kingdom is active and is taking the initiative in seeking agreement.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware that the number of deaths and accidents occurring in these waters is ever increasing and that United Kingdom seamen, whose union I represent here with my constituents, are increasingly concerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—at the number of deaths that is occurring? We do not find it satisfactory for the Minister to answer that the Ministry is convinced that the present regulations concerning navigation and standards of seamanship in this busiest waterway in the world are the best that could be operated. Should not the Minister consider applying Lord Rochdale's proposal to shipping and


setting up a marine authority to examine the very conflicting problems that exist in this very busy waterway?

Mr. Grant: I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, which I know are shared by everyone in the House, and which are certainly shared by me, about the dangers to the seamen who undertake this very hazardous task. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that we are not satisfied that the present arrangement is perfect. This is precisely why we hope to make further proposals to the international body, after consultation with all interested authorities. We are also giving urgent consideration to the question of a marine authority.

Mr. C. Pannell: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) declared his close interest with seamen and the union. I thought that it was proper for my hon. Friend to do so, by saying that he represented seamen, as he does in a real sense, as well as his constituents. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will indicate that this did not merit the derision of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Speaker: I heard nothing improper in what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask a question as the Honorary President of the United Kingdom Pilots Association, a rôle in which I succeeded a Conservative Member?
Despite the Minister's painstaking replies, is he not putting action off until the Greek Kalends if he is aiming at full international agreement among about 40 seafaring nations on the question of traffic in the Channel? Is he aware that it would be possible, although I would not say that it would be finally the right answer, to get consultation on the question of pilotage amongst the nations which border the Channel and which have pilots? They might agree amongst themselves to extend the limits of compulsory pilotage so that fully qualified pilots board these vessels when they are within the ambit of any of the countries bounding the Channel? Will the Minister undertake to reconsider the Government's attitude and not wait for full international

agreement, which we all know is bound to take years, but call a conference of the nations immediately concerned?

Mr. Grant: We do not rule this out as a possibility. Should it prove to be impossible, which I do not accept, to secure international agreement, obviously we will consider a more regional one. I was stressing that this would obviously be less satisfactory than having an international agreement. A number of ships other than European ships use these crowded waterways and this is the whole purpose of securing international agreement. After all, the previous Government, of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member, succeeded in obtaining agreement on the traffic separation scheme in the Straits of Dover. This is voluntary, but it is observed by 95 per cent. of shipping. We hope that it will be possible to obtain agreement to make this compulsory.

IBROX FOOTBALL GROUND (ACCIDENT)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the tragic accident which occurred at Ibrox Football Ground, Glasgow, on 2nd January which all Members of the House will have heard of with deep shock. Sixty six people lost their lives and a further 145 required hospital treatment for their injuries. At present five people are still in hospital. Most of the other injured made a quick recovery after treatment.
I saw the site of the disaster on the following day when I also visited some of the injured in hospital. The accident occurred towards the end of the traditional New Year match between Rangers and Celtic, when spectators, who had been very well behaved, were leaving the ground. It took place on a stairway leading down from the terracing at the east end of the ground and there a considerable number of spectators fell.
The exact cause or causes of the accident have not yet been established, but the Lord Advocate has already set in motion the procedure for a fatal accident inquiry into the circumstances surrounding it. The inquiry will begin its hearings as soon as possible and they


will be held in public before a sheriff and a jury; it is intended that the Sheriff of Lanarkshire should preside.
In the meantime, Ministers have had discussions with representatives of the football authorities on both sides of the Border and have asked that clubs should make an urgent review of safety arrangements at their grounds, The public attending many matches in Scotland last week were asked to exercise care and patience when leaving grounds, as this is a simple way of helping to reduce crowd pressure, whatever kind of situation may develop. This advice is being conveyed to all football clubs and is to be repeated regularly through suitable media. Together with the Home Secretary and the Minister responsible for sport, I shall be giving consideration to measures which in the longer term may be necessary to improve safety arrangements at sports grounds generally. We shall take into account the information obtained from football clubs in England, Wales and Scotland. This was asked for by the Home Secretary and myself in November 1970, as we wished to take practical steps to implement the recommendations of the Lang Report; and we shall of course also take into consideration the results of this fatal accident inquiry when they become available.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life-saving work done by the various services involved and by members of the public. Despite difficulties of access due to the very large crowds leaving the area of the ground at the time, the emergency services acted with commendable promptness. Some doctors were in attendance almost at once; and the fire brigade turned out with resuscitation equipment. Ambulances carried out a constant shuttle service to the hospitals, whose staff were able to treat most of the patients by the early evening. The police rendered all possible assistance and organised a central information bureau to deal with the many enquiries received. I should like to thank also Glasgow Corporation Social Work Department, the mortuary staff and the Salvation Army who did so much to comfort and care for relatives of those who died.
I am sure that the House would wish to join me in conveying our deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives in this disaster.

Mr. Ross: This was indeed Scotland's blackest New Year holiday ever. Is the Secretary of State aware that we all wish to join him in his expressions of sympathy for the families who were so tragically bereaved and in his tribute to the police, doctors, nurses, fire services and other public services, as well as footballers, officials and members of the public, who worked so untiringly to minimise the disaster and to bring aid to the innocent victims?
May I express my thanks also to the Lord Advocate for so speedily invoking the procedures of the Fatal Accidents Inquiry Act? Is there any possibility of the right hon. Gentleman telling us now when the inquiry will open and how long it might last? The sad thing is that the disaster could probably have happened anywhere else in the country. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all proposals to safeguard life where there are such crowds, whether at Ibrox or elsewhere, even proposals that might require legislation, will be competent at the inquiry and can be fully considered? Will the right hon. Gentleman take note and pass on to the relevant Minister that we shall want a debate on the whole question after we have the result of the inquiry?

Mr. Campbell: As soon as the Procurator Fiscal can complete the preliminary arrangements the hearing should start. In view of the public interest and the large numbers of witnesses likely to come forward, the preparations may require about a month. The hearing is expected to extend over several days, but the findings and the recommendations of the jury will be made available immediately the inquiry finishes. It is for the Procurator Fiscal to marshal the evidence and to consider its competence. As for a debate, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt have heard what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Rankin: As the Member for the Glasgow, Govan Division, I support what the Secretary of State has said and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said. I was able to visit the ground almost immediately after the disaster, and one or two matters have worried me ever since that visit. I hope that the inquiry will be very searching indeed, because the disaster on 2nd January raises one or two


issues to which we must give our immediate and serious attention. The first is the presence of juveniles at football matches where the crowd is as big as 80,000. We must look at that problem, because if juveniles—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to put a question.

Mr. Rankin: I am putting a question, Mr. Speaker—with a little preface, I agree, but I must put it. If juveniles or young people are to be at such games, should not they be segregated from the general crowd for their own protection, and have their own entry and exit? There are many associated problems, and I am not exploring them or even raising them today, but they must be faced. We must remember that this was not the first such disaster.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep in order. These are all matters for a debate if one takes place.

Mr. Campbell: The point about juveniles is one which will have to be considered and recommendations made when the inquiry is undertaken. The Government are considering, in the light of the information given by the football clubs on the action they have taken to improve their safety arrangements, the question of a further investigation into the problems of crowd safety at football matches and other sporting events. Any such investigation would take into account the findings and recommendations of the fatal accident inquiry.

Mr. Money: As the risk of a potential tragedy of this sort is, unhappily, so very widespread, and there is a general need to improve spectator accommodation at grounds through the country, will my right hon. Friend make recommendations to my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make more funds available to clubs, either in the form of tax relief on improvements of a capital kind or by dealing with the anomaly that has arisen in the case of Singette v. Martin by legislation as quickly as possible?

Mr. Campbell: These are not questions for me, but my right hon. Friend will no doubt take note of what has been said.

Clearly the inquiries must be held first, and while those inquiries are going on the immediate action which I announced, which the Government thought necessary in order to reduce risks, is that advice should be given to crowds to leave slowly. If the individual wishes to make his contribution to safety, this is the one thing which can help to reduce crowd pressure, whatever kind of situation or obstruction may occur ahead. Beyond that, we must await the recommendations of the inquiries.

Dr. Miller: Having in mind the fact that a tragedy like this could happen in any ground where there is pressure of thousands of people leaving the area, does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind any proposals for the complete redesigning of football stadiums in order to obviate tragedies of this kind in future?

Mr. Campbell: Certain recommendations were contained in the Lang Report, upon which I and my right hon. Friends have been in discussion and in correspondence with the football authorities. Clearly, the results of the Fatal Accident Act inquiry must be awaited before actions as far-reaching as the hon. Gentleman suggests are taken.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on. No doubt the Leader of the House will take account of the fact that so many hon. Members wanted to ask questions.

BRITISH AMBASSADOR, URUGUAY (KIDNAPPING)

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement on the kidnapping of the British Ambassador to Uruguay.
Her Majesty's Ambassador in Montevideo was kidnapped on his way to his office on 8th January. I know the whole House will share my anger and dismay at this barbaric and senseless act and will join me in expressing the deepest sympathy for Mr. Jackson and his wife and family.
We have been in the closest touch with the Uruguayan Government from


the beginning. A Foreign and Commonwealth Office security expert flew to Montevideo on 10th January to help the Embassy. Last night, Mr. Oliver Wright, a Deputy Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, left for Montevideo. He will review the position urgently with the Uruguayan Government and will also assess the needs of the Embassy.
A communiqué issued by the terrorists on the 11th January, which is thought to be authentic, stated that all the hostages they hold were in good health. There is no news of Mr. Jackson's whereabouts. As is usual in such cases, various conflicting anonymous messages have been received. We are examining these very carefully but have so far no evidence that any of them is authentic.
The Uruguayan Government are continuing an intensive search and have instituted emergency powers for a period of forty days.
The terms which the terrorists may demand for Mr. Jackson's release are as yet unknown. It would be wrong for me to attempt to disguise from the House the gravity of the situation. Her Majesty's Government will of course do everything they can to help secure Mr. Jackson's safe release.

Mr. Healey: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Her Majesty's Opposition and, I am sure, the whole House share the anger he expressed at the kidnapping and his expressions of sympathy for Mr. Jackson, his wife and family. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the steps already taken by the Government to pursue the matter. Is it the Government's intention to pursue the same policy on this matter as in the case of the kidnapping of the British official in Canada?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The analogy he has drawn with the Canadian case is very much in our minds. We were very glad of the result of that case, through patience and perseverance, and we hope that this will happen on this occasion as well.

Mr. Temple: Does my right hon. Friend remember the conversation we had recently regarding my anxiety concerning the safety of the families of diplomats in Latin America? In view of the changed circumstances, in which almost no Government can guarantee the security of their own nationals, let alone foreign nationals, will he forthwith institute an inquiry within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see in what way he can further ensure the security, safety and welfare of our diplomats in exposed conditions?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. I recall that conversation, and I also recall that last summer, when other diplomats of other nationalities were kidnapped in South America, I called for a full report in the Department about security arrangements in South America. The last Government instituted inquiries and sent security officers out there in April and May last year. I was satisfied that the steps that had been recommended then had been followed and that there was no more useful action which could be taken at that stage. However, we have sent a security officer out again and we shall await urgently any recommendations he may make, either for Uruguay or any other of these States where these dangers may exist.

Mr. Faulds: While sharing the House's abhorrence at this sort of activity, may I ask what additional pressure the right hon. Gentleman intends to bring to bear on the Uruguayan authorities—in view of the fact that they are particularly intransigent in matters of this nature in contrast with the attitude of the Canadian authorities—in trying to preserve the life of this most unfortunate gentleman?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I have to choose with great care any words I use because of any effect that they could have on Mr. Jackson's safety. We are in close touch with the Uruguayan Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent a personal message to the President of Uruguay and Mr. Oliver Wright will be in touch with the Uruguayan Government. I prefer not to add to that at this stage.

BILLS PRESENTED

RATING

Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. James Prior, Mr. R. Graham Page, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, and Mr. Michael Heseltine, presented a Bill to extend the provisions relating to the exemption from rating of land and buildings used in connection with agriculture: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

PREVENTION OF DISEASES DUE TO SMOKING

Mr. Laurie Pavitt, supported by Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Dr. Miller, Dr. Shirley Summerskill, Mr. David Steel, Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott, and Dr. Tom Stuttaford, presented a Bill to provide against the risks to health due to smoking: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th May and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the matter of Local Government Finance in Wales and Monmouthshire, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am astonished that the words "and Monmouthshire" have been added to the word "Wales" in this Motion. I had understood that this matter was resolved once and for all by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas). The Secretary of State is Secretary of State for Wales. In the absence of a Welsh Minister, may I have an assurance from the Leader of the House that there has been no change in that position?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): As far as I know, there has been no change in the position.

Question put and agreed o.

Ordered,
That the matter of Local Government Finance in Wales and Monmouthshire, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committtee for their consideration.

FINANCE OF COUNCIL HOUSE BUILDING

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable and encourage local authorities to finance the building of council houses out of their own revenue, in order to relieve tenants and ratepayers of interest charges on long-term borrowing for house building.
A strong case does not depend on the length of the presentation and I intend to be brief. It is my purpose to demonstrate the intolerable burden of interest charges and how it could be reduced by financing part of the future housing programme out of annual revenue rather than by long-term loans.
An average council house or fiat today, including land, is costing £5,000 to build. How much does that home cost by the time interest has been paid on it for 60 years, the usual period, at the current


rate of interest, which is 9⅞ per cent. at the Public Works Loans Board rate? What is the total cost of that house? It is no less than the truly staggering sum of £29,730. That is the ultimate cost of a single council house or flat. Of this total, £24,730 goes in interest to the investors. In other words, six times the original sum borrowed has to be repaid, with consequences which I intend to show.
These figures are amazing but accurate. They are not my figures. They have been provided for me by Mr. William Shaw, the highly expert, experienced and respected Salford City Treasurer. But, of course, they apply to any council in the country.
What does all this mean in terms of weekly rents? The interest charge alone amounts to £7 18s. 6d. a week on such a house plus £1 12s. 1d. weekly repayment of the original loan. Adding a typical repairs and management charge of 10s. a week, the total unsubsidised rent comes to £10 0s. 7d., plus rates, which may be £1 a week or more. This means that approximately 16s. out of every £1 rent goes to pay for not the bricks and mortar and timber and building workers' labour but interest to the investors. That is why the rents of new council houses are so high.
No doubt it can be pointed out that a good part of this colossal rent is reduced by a subsidy from the Government; thank goodness for that! Without the subsidised loans provided by the Labour Government's 1967 Act, council house building would have come almost to a stop in this country. But I wish to make the point as strongly as I can that if it were not for the onerous interest charges, the subsidy would not be necessary. It is not the council tenant who is being subsidised but the moneylender.
Even so, the subsidy does not by any means equal the interest charge. The tenant, even with his present subsidised loan at 4 per cent., may have to pay over 60 years £4 5s. a week interest plus £1 12s. 1d. repayment of the original capital plus 10s. for repairs and management. Thus the subsidised rent comes to £6 7s. 1d. a week, plus rates. This is utterly outside the capacity to pay of several million heads of families whose take-home pay is less than £18 a week.
Furthermore, it is generally believed to be the present Government's intention to end the 4 per cent. loans and remove subsidies entirely, except for certain sections such as the aged, the disabled and the slum clearance tenant. So shortly the thraldom of exorbitant interest charges will become still more apparent.
Who suffers this burden? Mainly it is the council house tenant. Second, to a lesser extent, it is the taxpayer who provides the £190 million a year in subsidies—taxpayers of course include millions of council house tenants—and to a smaller degree, ratepayers in those authorities where there is a contribution to council housing out of the rates. This imposition of fivefold interest charges is so heavy that it cannot be allowed to continue.
Let us consider in contrast what happens when we build a motorway or a battleship. It is paid for out of annual revenue by cash payment, cash on the nail. Not a single penny goes on interest, for the Government make the payment out of taxation. If we can pay for motorways and battleships in this way, why not for houses, too? Why should we have to pay five times as much in the long run for housing? We could build six houses for the price of one by avoiding interest charges by this method.
I realise that with a Private Member's Bill such as this the mover is not permitted to involve Government expenditure, and so I have not attempted to do so. I will say only that this principle of financing houses out of revenue rather than by long-term loans applies even more importantly to the Government than to the local authority. It would be a tremendous, though relatively cheap, contribution towards ending the desperate housing shortage if the Government provided the worst housed towns with a considerable sum out of taxation to build houses which would be entirely interest-free and, therefore, extraordinarily cheap.
Returning to local govenment finance, I readily concede that neither councils not the Government could finance the whole of the year's housing programme out of revenue. The sum involved would be too great to many people's minds, though not, I admit, to mine Last year's council houses started cost just under £800 million compared with arms expenditure of three times that sum. Instead of proposing that all council houses


be built out of annual revenue, I am proposing that part of the programme be financed in this way. The great saving involved on those houses could be spread over the whole pool of a council's houses.
In Leeds—and this is a small example—the City Council for a number of years put aside about £100,000 each year from revenue with which it bought houses on sale in the market which the council wanted to use for its own tenants. It would be possible to create, from rents obtained in this way, funds for further interest-free building.
There was the famous case of the L.C.C. which under Herbert Morrison wanted to build a bridge over the Thames but was refused loan sanction by the Government. Morrison then persuaded the L.C.C. to build the bridge out of revenue, and this was done. Admittedly, if inflation continues it will reduce the real cost of the repayment of instalments in the years ahead. Nevertheless, the gain to the borrower is surely more than offset by the loss incurred through having to repay interest five times the original sum as well as repaying the original loan.
It may be asked whether councils do not already possess the necessary powers. Unfortunately, they do not. They are limited to £1 for every existing house in their housing revenue account. For example, in an average sized city such as Salford, with 13,000 council dwellings, only £13,000 a year can be spent in this

way, and that is a trifle. There are further limitations restricting the use of this sum, so that it becomes even smaller. The original purpose of this general direction was to reduce the administrative work involved in seeking specific Ministerial directions for permission over small sums. If councils wish to spend more than is permitted on this basis, they have to seek the specific approval of the Minister.
I feel confident that, whatever action may be taken on this Bill, the ultimate outcome will be to reduce the burden of interest in some way along the lines outlined. The history of the next decade will, I believe, confirm this confidence.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. Blenkinsop, Mr. Orme, Mr. Ashton, Mrs. Doris Fisher, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Stallard, Mr. Skinner, Mr. David Stoddart, Mr. Clinton Davis, and Mr. Booth.

FINANCE OF COUNCIL HOUSE BUILDING

Bill to enable and encourage local authorities to finance the building of council houses out of their own revenue, in order to relieve tenants and ratepayers of interest charges on long-term borrowing for house building; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th February, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

MR. SPEAKER KING'S RETIREMENT

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that she will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of her Royal Favour upon Dr. the Right Honourable Horace Maybray King for his eminent services during the important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and dignity presided in the Chair of this House, and assuring Her Majesty that whatever expense Her Majesty shall think fit to be incurred upon that account this House will make good the same.
I am happy to have the opportunity to move this Motion and I have no doubt that the House will unanimously endorse it. The House has already had an opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Speaker King before he left the Chair but surely this occasion should not pass without my saying again, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House, how much we owe to Dr. King for all he did during the five years in which he held this high office.
The traditions of Parliament and the good name of this House were always entirely safe in his hands. On 10th December my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister paid a tribute to Dr. King in which he stressed his outstanding qualities as Speaker and above all his fairness. He is a party man, as we all are, but as Speaker of this House he was always wholly impartial and known and recognised as such. He occupied a great office with a tremendous devotion to the tradition of this House and a tremendous sense of the qualities of this House. He showed during his term of office a special interest in the Commonwealth, not only by his visits but also by his interest in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am sure that we all feel a particular debt to him for what he did in this connection.
The Prime Minister also stressed the wide range of Dr. King's many interests. It would be wrong for me to rehearse what my right hon. Friend has said but I should like to add a few personal words. I always found that Dr. King had an immense fund of kindness and goodwill. He was a man who was always intensely serious about his responsibilities to this

House, but never solemn. He was a man to whom gaiety came naturally, particularly when there was a piano within reach. He is a man of considerable wit and humour. I believe that Dr. King is a truly good man whose goodness shines out and warms all those who have had the honour and pleasure of meeting him.
We wish him all happiness in his retirement and we hope that he will have a long and happy retirement. He has so many interests he is interested in the welfare of young people, writing, music and in travel. He is happy in those interests and I think we would all agree that he is happy and blessed in the life and company of Mrs. King to whom also on this occasion we should like to pay tribute and express our great affection.
I have no doubt that the House will think it right that Her Majesty should in the terms of this Motion be invited to mark the retirement of Mr. Speaker King in the appropriate way. It is my happy duty to commend to the House the Motion standing on the Order Paper.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The Motion moved by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) provides the third opportunity for hon. and right hon. Members to pay tribute to Mr. Speaker King in this present Session. The first occasion was when he was re-elected to the Chair last summer with the customary show of reluctance which we have on these occasions, and the other occasion was, as the right hon. Gentleman said, when he announced his impending retirement in the House and when the Prime Minister and a number of us paid immediate tributes to what he had done, reserving later comments for today.
Mr. Speaker King was the first occupant of the Chair from our party on this side of the House. There was, in connection with his election as Speaker, even more publicity and speculation, even more allegations of various kinds of procedures, than we have had in the last few days. The reason was—and this is no disrespect to the present occupant of the Chair whom we have the pleasure of calling Mr. Speaker today for the first time—that, unlike yourself, his elevation to the Chair could be held to have an effect on the size of the Government majority which was then three and might have fallen below that. There was no difficulty


in securing the full support of the party opposite in his election. Some schemes and hopes do not always come off, however.
As you are, Mr. Speaker, he was well supported by a well-balanced team who occupied the junior Chairs in the months ahead. Certainly he had a task which no one would wish on any incoming Speaker, that of having to preside over a House where there were inevitably, as there are today and always will be one prays, matters of deep controversy, but also at a time when no one could know the date of the next General Election and when, for that very reason, controversies which we might have taken before in our stride sometimes tended, especially later at night, to get a little out of hand. It was for his conduct in the Chair, in those early days particularly, that many of us remember him, before he had time to establish his great authority.
The Home Secretary paid tribute to some of his extraneous and extramural activities, and rightly so. It is certainly true that he is a man of gaiety. Those of us who have heard him at functions outside this House, in which he enjoyed taking part on a scale far beyond that of any of his predecessors, will remember his love of fun, especially with young people. He had great experience of them from his position as headmaster, perhaps in a less unruly house than the one over which he was called to preside here. I have seen him at various teachers' conferences and other occasions.
One new dimension he brought to the Speakership compared with the record of equally distinguished predecessors was an identification of the Speakership of this House with the Speakership of other Assemblies throughout the Commonwealth and in a number of other foreign countries too. He frequently sought the leave of the House to travel, which was readily given because it was always in the recess so that we were not losing his services. There are many Commonwealth and foreign Parliaments who derived great benefit from his visits, and I believe that this House and country did by the way in which he comported himself when abroad.
It was characteristic that he arranged the timing of his retirement, of which he had given informal notice to a number of

those who needed to know many weeks before, in such a way that he was able to represent this House at the big conference of Commonwealth Speakers.
I know that I speak for all of my hon. and right hon. Friends when we send our best wishes to Dr. King and to Mrs. King, whose hospitality and friendship we shall long remember. We wish him a very happy retirement, in which I am sure he will continue to carry out the public work for which he has been noted all the years that he has been in this House and long before, and in other ways to work for the service of his fellow citizens especially the younger generation. That will be the hope of us all and I am sure, as the right hon. Gentleman is sure, that the whole House will unanimously pass this Motion.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The Leader of the Opposition has rightly pointed out that this is the third occasion on which we have paid tribute to Dr. King, and I shall not, therefore, unduly prolong our debate on the present Motion. Moreover, I think it unnecessary to do so, since I believe that Dr. King and Mrs. King are in no doubt as to the gratitude which the House feels for the way in which he discharged his task as Speaker and the way in which she backed him up.
Dr. King has a tremendous sense of humour. I have very happy recollections of the short hand-written notes which used to pass back and forth, though how he ever found time for them I know not. I particularly remember an occasion when he stayed with my wife and myself in Devon, and I found that we were up half the night, he, perhaps, being rather more steeled to all-night sittings than I was. On the occasion one learned not only of his love of Parliament and his knowledge of its tradition and history but also of the depth of his reading and the extent of his profound and enduring love of literature. He had not only those qualities but he was, as the Leader of the Opposition said, widely travelled. Some of us are pleased that one of his last acts as Speaker was to preside at the conference of Commonwealth Speakers in India, one of the most important parts of our multi-racial Commonwealth which he has done so much to help to preserve.
Dr. King entertained many people, both from the House and outside it. It is not for me to question or to encroach upon the Royal Prerogative, but I hope that, when that is exercised, in whatever way it may be, the result will be that Dr. King will not be many miles away from this Chamber, and that, in an economic sense, he will not have to depend exclusively upon the Members' Pension Scheme for his future sustenance.
I am sure that it is the wish of all right hon. and hon. Members that he will have an active, a full and very happy retirement. If one thing is certain, it is that the moving of the Motion and our support for it is done in no spirit of formality but with a real feeling of warmth and gratitude.

Mr. R. H. Turton: Dr. King came to the Chair with, probably, a greater knowledge of the customs and history of Parliament than any of his predecessors. Throughout the whole of his Speakership, he showed a great affection for the House, which was reciprocated by the affection which Members of all parties felt towards him. He presided over our proceedings with wit, patience and good humour.
I think that Dr. King can be regarded as one of the great Speakers of Parliament. As has been said, this was the Opposition's first successful effort at producing a Speaker, and I congratulate them on having produced Mr. Speaker King, with his very great record. He has been a great friend to Commonwealth Parliamentarians. He was the most widely travelled of all Speakers. No predecessor had travelled so widely both throughout the Commonwealth and the United States of America, and I believe that no Speaker, with his wife, has shown greater hospitality to Commonwealth Parliamentarians.
May I add a word as a member of the Select Committee on Procedure? Dr. King helped that Committee greatly by giving evidence on a number of occasions. Some of the recommendations of the Committee were adopted by the House, and, in particular, we have had innovations regarding both Question Time and Standing Order No. 9. The way in which Mr. Speaker King carried out the recommendations of the House on Question Time and Standing Order No. 9

showed his ability in improving the system of Parliament. I am sure that Parliament can still be improved, but, when we look back on his Speakership, we shall realise that a great stride has been made towards making this place a better debating Chamber.
In my capacity as Father of the House, I add my good wishes to him and his wife in their retirement, and I hope that the thoughts expressed by the Leader of the Liberal Party as to his comfort and position in the future will in due course he fulfilled.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I rise only because I think that Dr. King would appreciate it if somebody who was a fellow member with him of the National Union of Teachers said a word on this occasion. He was a great ornament to his profession. I remember, from the days when both he and I were working in opposition, how many educational causes dear to his heart we were able together to do our best to forward.
I believe that the whole teaching profession felt that an honour was done to it when he was raised to the high office which he held in so distinguished a manner. I am delighted that the Motion has been moved, and I am sure that it will have the unanimous support of the House.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I hope that it will not be thought out of order if I make a few comments on the Motion.
There will be general agreement I imagine—I say this with a minimum of regret—that I was probably one of the more difficult pupils in this particular school. I found, contrary to my expectation, that I was treated always with the greatest courtesy and tolerance, indeed, forbearance, by Mr. Speaker King. Whenever I went to seek his advice, which, odd as it may seem, I was not averse to doing, and I took refuge in his secluded chamber, I was always treated with patience and, of course, his usual courtesy—and with more than my share of Speaker's sherry.
We all have in our varying ways a great affection for the ex-Speaker. I only hope, now he has been put out to grass and goes to another place, as he eventually will, that Dr. King is treated


by the authorities in that Chamber with the same great kindness, courtesy and consideration that his more difficult pupils in this Chamber received.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: On purely personal grounds, I should like to add a short furthe tribute to your peredecessor, Mr. Speaker. Before Mr. Speaker King was elevated to hte Chair, he and I had innumerable debates on social security matters across the Floor. He set an example to the House of powerful, penetrating criticism, coupled with a most exquisite personal courtesy.
When he was in the Chair, I owed him a great deal. He was in your Chair, Mr. Speaker, when I made the transition, which some of us make several times, from Front Bench to back bench. As you will know, Sir, that is a moment at which the kindly help, courtesy and advice of the Chair is of special advantage to a Member. I should not like this moment to pass without saying how grateful I am to Mr. Speaker King for his innumerable kindnesses.
As has been said, he was the first occupant of the Chair to come from the Labour Benches. If I may say so without impertinence, the Labour Party has great reason to be proud of that. So has the House. Your predecessor, Sir, served us extremely well, with courtesy, with charm, and above all, with personal and individual kindness. We all wish him many years of good health and happiness, to enjoy not only the gaiety of social life, for which he is so admirably fitted, but whatever Her Majesty in her most gracious wisdom may see fit to confer upon him.

Mr. J. D. Dormand: The fact of which Dr. King was most proud—perhaps this is not generally known in the House—is that he was a County Durham man. It is remarkable that throughout his Speakership, and in the international position in which he was held in such high regard, Dr. King remembered above all that he was a County Durham man. As a proud Durham County man myself, I do not wish this occasion to pass without that fact being put on record.
I recall that, when I was sworn in last year and I shook hands with Mr.

Speaker King, he asked, "Are you a real County Durham man?", and, when I was able to assure him that I was born and bred and lived in the county—it was almost as though I was one of his good former pupils—he said, "That is all right, you are welcome".
I should like the House to know also that Dr. King obtained a grant from Durham County Council many years ago in order to be able to go to university. He never forgot that, and it was typical of the man.
On his first teaching appointment, he wrote to Durham County Council to remind it that he had obtained a post. He wrote to the county council again when he was appointed a headmaster and when he was elected a Member of Parliament. He did not forget to inform the county council when he was appointed to the Speakership. That seems to me typical of the man.
I am proud that I am a Durham County man and that I have been able to say what I have said today.

Sir David Renton: Reference has been made to the generous hospitality of Mr. Speaker King, but I do not think that it is generally known that perhaps his most touching act of hospitality was the giving of parties for mentally handicapped children in Mr. Speaker's house. I attended more than one of those parties, and it was wonderful to see how he made the occasion go in the most unlikely circumstances.
Like the Father of the House, my tight hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I served on the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform, the first for a quarter of a century, over which Mr. Speaker King presided during his first three years of Speakership—and very exacting work it was, requiring knowledge, patience and skill, and Mr. Speaker King showed those three qualities in great measure to the great advantage of this House. I should like to join in the tributes paid to him.

Miss J. M. Quennell: I should not like this occasion to pass without one of the Hampshire Members adding her voice to the expressions of regret about the departure of Mr. Speaker King, who was, and is, an honorary alderman of Hampshire County Council—Durham


does not have all the honours in this respect—a Hampshire Member, and always a good Hampshire man.
Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), I served on Mr. Speaker King's Conference on Electoral Reform. I, too, was touched when I brought to this House the sixth form of the Lord Mayor Treloar's College, all of whom are physically handicapped, and Mr. Speaker received them in his house. Without the co-operation of hon. Members on both sides of the House, we would have had an almost impossible job to get the chairs round the building, and Mr. Speaker put the bonne bouche to their trip on that day.
Mention has been made of Mr. Speaker King's hospitality and of the innovations he made in the House. I do not want to put any ideas into your head, Mr. Speaker, but one of Mr. Speaker King's most touching gestures when he became Speaker was to give a special dinner for all the lady Members of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, nemine contradicente,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that she will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of her Royal Favour upon Dr. the Right Honourable Horace Maybray King for his eminent services during the important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and dignity presided in the Chair of this House, and assuring Her Majesty that whatever expense Her Majesty shall think fit to be incurred upon that account this House will make good the same.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.45 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House will know that the Bill was first introduced and taken through its various stages in another place. Members will probably recall that some doubts were expressed as to whether this course of action was constitutionally correct. I think that the very full explanation given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House allayed in large measure the doubts which existed and the House accepted his explanation. Indeed, during the Second Reading in another place the noble Lords, Lord Byers, Lord Winterbottom and Lord Shinwell—and both of the latter noble Lords served in the Ministry of Defence in a previous Administration—agreed that no constitutional problems arose.
The reason why no constitutional problem arises is that the Bill does not provide any grant of Supply for the Services of the Crown. The House will probably know that until 1955 the Army and Air Force Bills were Supply Bills. This is no longer the case, and Members who are interested in the undoubtedly fascinating history of those Bills will find the matter referred to at some length at pages 768 and 769 of the 17th Edition of Erskine May.
While absolutely no constitutional problem arises, we are anxious to take account of the wishes of the House. On this occasion I think that there is fairly general agreement that it served the convenience of both Houses that the Bill should be introduced in another place. But if that course is felt to be unsatisfactory my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has explained that he will be prepared to consider a change.
I do not claim that this Bill is the result of deep research which we undertook when in opposition. It is in fact the result of recommendations made by the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in 1966. The Government and Opposition of the day accepted the Select Committee's Report and work was set in


train within the Ministry of Defence to carry out the broad intentions of the Select Committee.
The Select Committee said that it hoped that the next quinquennial Bill, which is the Bill we are discussing today, would go further towards simplifying and standardising Service law. It accepted that traditions and differences which did not impair efficiency in the Services should be allowed to continue, but it urged that further standardisation should be introduced as soon as possible where different practices were a barrier to efficiency.
As a result, the Navy Discipline Act, 1957, the Army Act, 1955, and the Air Force Act, 1955, were reviewed. The outcome of this review is incorporated in the Bill and is a single common code of offences and their related maximum punishments. However, when the House studies the Bill, it will see that it does not attempt to provide a single discipline Act for the Forces. It keeps the three existing separate Acts in being, but amends them in a number of ways.
At first sight, it might seem more logical and tidy to create a single Act, but there are a number of reasons why we have not attempted to do this. The main reason is that the present distinct systems reflect the different operational requirements of the Services—the different environment in which they work and the different tasks on which they are often engaged. For example, forces afloat must be able to deal very quickly with breaches of discipline. Single ships may be at sea for a long time without returning to base. This is the kind of situation which does not frequently arise in Army or Air Force service. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to give commanding officers in the Army and Air Force the same powers of discipline as are needed by their colleagues in the Navy. Also, there seems to be a good deal to be said for keeping a known and accepted system of military discipline. The present Acts are known and, I hope, are broadly understood by Servicemen in the field and afloat, and when so many changes have been made in recent years I think there will be considerable relief in the Services that wholesale changes are not being made in an administrative system which, on the whole, is working reasonably well.
Another important reason for keeping the two disciplinary systems is that a single Act would by no means be as simple as it might first appear. It would have to be somewhat longer than the present separate Acts and would be more complicated and more difficult to use in practice than the single Service Acts. It seems to me that the job of a commanding officer in the field or afloat, or undertaking one of the arduous peacekeeping rôles which are frequently the task of the Forces today, is difficult enough, and I think we would probably all agree that we should try to keep the law as simple as possible.
For these reasons, we have decided not to attempt to combine the three separate Acts into one. Instead, the Bill keeps the existing Acts in being, but amends them to harmonise the disciplinary system wherever it makes sense to do so.
Now I turn to the Bill itself. I must announce to the House that it is of a fairly technical nature. I shall try not to weary the House by giving an account of every Clause of what is a long and complicated Bill, although I shall try to mention some of the more important elements of it.
Clause 1 is of historic and constitutional importance. From the seventeenth century until 1955 the Army Acts, and subsequently the Air Force Acts, were annual Acts which were renewable every single year. Anyone who has seen the film "Cromwell", which is on at the moment in London, will not need to be reminded of the reasons which led Parliament to keep such a tight grip on the very existence of an army in this country. In 1955 the Acts became quinquennial Acts subject to annual renewal by Order in Council, after affirmative Resolution by both Houses, up to a maximum of five years. On the other hand, the Naval Discipline Act was never subject to this kind of procedure. The Naval Discipline Act has always been a permanent Statute, and it is only revised as and when Parliament considers it to be necessary.
The Select Committee of 1966 particularly asked that the difference in status between the three Acts should be looked into. We might have tried to place the Army and Air Force Acts upon the same permanent basis as the Naval Discipline Act, and, looking at the


matter solely from the point of view of the original reason for annual passing of the Army and Air Force Acts, there really would be very little reason to urge that this was not possible. On the other hand, the Select Committee of 1954 only recommended ending the annual passing of these Acts on the basis that the special jurisdiction given to the Armed Forces should be subject to review by Select Committee in the course of the quinquennial re-enactment.
I feel that it would be inappropriate, therefore, to attempt to move the Army Act and the Air Force Act on to the same permanent basis as the Naval Discipline Act. I do not think this would be the wish of the House. We therefore provide that the Naval Discipline Act, which, up to now, has been permanent, should become a quinquennial Act upon the same basis as the other two Acts.
I apologise for that rather complex explanation of what is, I accept, a fairly complex situation.
Turning to subsequent parts of the Bill, Part II of the Bill, that is Clauses 2 to 43, are, in a sense, the most important part of the Bill and certainly its central theme. These Clauses, 2 to 43, create a common code of offences and maximum punishments which will apply to all members of the three Services. Up to now there have been two codes of offences and punishments. The Navy has had its own code, and the Army and the Air Force have had a separate joint code.
The Royal Marines have always been subject to the Army Act, but when they are serving in Her Majesty's ships or in naval establishments they are subject to the Naval Discipline Act.
The Bill contains a considerable number of amendments which will bring these differing codes into line with one another. In order to do this it is necessary to introduce into certain of the Acts, some new offences which have not appeared there before. One example is that the Army Act will now contain the offence of loss or hazarding of a ship, which, previously, rather naturally, has been only a naval offence. I accept that this change is not perhaps urgently necessary, and I cannot imagine that lieutenant-colonels will be spending much time studying the difference between port and starboard; but the short answer is that it is necessary

if we are to provide a common code for all the three Services in the three Statutes.
Equally, just as one or two new offences have been created, so a number of existing offences have been dropped from the common code. For example, there will no longer be a separate offence of cashiering, which, to me, has always carried the implication of having a hand in the till. Nor, also, will there be the offence of falsely obtaining or prolonging leave in the Army and Air Force Acts, but before Servicemen falsely attempt to prolong their leave may I warn them them that there are in fact other provisions which will stop them doing that.
What we have in the Bill is a harmonisation of the lists of offences so that there is a common code. We hope it is drafted in a form which will make it easy for the Services to use.

Mr. Tom Driberg: Would the noble lord say a word or two about Clause 28? There is a new offence about creating despondency orally or in writing or in other ways. It seems rather widely drawn. Would it apply to some casual remarks within the Forces—operating in Northern Ireland, for instance?

Lord Balniel: For me to attempt to interpret the legal meaning of the words in the Bill would, on Second Reading, be unwise; and I shall be explaining to the House later on that we shall be proposing, if it is the wish of the House, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; and it is that kind of point which, I should have thought, would be eminently suitable for discussion in the Select Committee.
The Bill also—and here I come to Clauses 36 to 40—establishes a common scheme of punishments. Certain punishments, as I have explained, disappear altogether. Instead, there will be a single code of punishment to which all members of the Armed Forces will be subject. It is not only certain punishments which disappear from the previous legislation. So also do certain old phrases. The provision under which
an officer who behaves in a scandalous manner unbecoming the character of an officer and gentleman is to be cashiered
is amended. I think that phrase is redolent of soldiering in the Punjab, of brandy glasses, card tables. I suppose this is a bit anachronistic. I imagine


lawyers would find it very difficult to define what gentlemanly and ungentlemanly conduct is. I think the best definition was given by King James when he was asked by a mother to make her son a gentleman. King James replied, perhaps rather roughly, that he could make him a nobleman but God Almighty could not make him a gentleman. The phrase, "conduct and character of an officer and gentleman" has been withdrawn from the Bill.
Along with establishing a single system of punishment, we have also decided that there should be a single maximum penalty for the different offences. This is the present naval system, but the Army and the Air Force Acts at present carry a higher maximum penalty for certain offences on active service and a lower penalty at other times. These offences are disobedience or threatening a superior officer, desertion, drunkenness and offences by or in relation to sentries. In modern conditions it seems quite inappropriate to measure the gravity of any one of these offences by the existence of a state of active service. This does not seem to be the right criterion. Drunkenness when one is flying an aircraft with crew or passengers on board and disobedience on patrol with one of the Polaris submarines are neither more nor less serious whether or not a state of active service exists.
There is one provision in the code of offences to which I should draw the attention of the House. Under Clauses 2 and 7 it is proposed to re-enact the death penalty for a range of military offences. These offences are: mutiny or incitement to mutiny on active service, misconduct in action, assisting the enemy, obstructing operations, failure to repress a mutiny and spying for the enemy on board Her Majesty's ships and naval establishments overseas. The last one is not in the Bill but is in Section 93 of the Naval Discipline Act.
Hon. Members are of course rightly deeply concerned about the scope of the death penalty in our legal system. It still exists for one or two offences in the civil law, for instance, treachery under the Treason Act, but the House will note that apart from mutny or incitement

to mutiny on active service, the only offences which will carry liability of the death penalty are those which have been committed with the intention of assisting the enemy. The results of the grave offences which still carry the death penalty as a maximum sentence could be far greater than any results likely to flow from a crime of murder in civil life. These are the kind of offences which could imperil a ship or a military unit and consequently the lives of comrades. They could imperil the security of an army or a fleet or the security of the country as a whole.
The other point which the House might like to know is that of course the court will always be able to award any less punishment if it thinks fit to do so. As one would expect, the utmost restraint has been used in carrying out the death penalty in the past. If we put aside executions for murder, which of course is a civil and not a military offence, and which is no longer a capital offence in the military courts, four men have been executed under the Service Discipline Acts since 1939. Three men were executed after conviction for armed mutiny whilst serving in the Indian Ocean in 1942. One was executed for the civil offence of treachery in the course of the war in 1946.
I will rapidly draw the attention of the House to Part III of the Bill, Clauses 44 to 58. The purpose of the Clauses is to codify practices where they differ between the Services—and they are fairly technical in nature. Clause 56 I think is of general interest. Hon. Members will recall that some time ago a private soldier was brought before a magistrates' court as a suspected deserter. He managed, by committing perjury, to convince the justices that he was not subject to military law, and so he was released. The military authorities later collected evidence which showed that he was in fact a deserter from the Army, and he was arrested by the military police under the normal powers of arrest in the Army Act and charged for the offence of desertion. There was a fair amount of criticism at the time on the grounds that this soldier should not have been brought to account by the military authorities without his being brought again before the civil court which had previously released him. Administrative orders were issued to ensure


that this situation would not arise again, and Clause 56 is designed simply to embody this in legislation.
Parts IV and V of the Bill, that is Clauses 59 to 75, contain a variety of miscellaneous Amendments, many of which are rationalisations of practice between the Services. One of these, Clause 74, will be of special interest to the Navy. It enables the new rank of chief fleet petty officer, recently introduced into the Navy, to be given its proper title of warrant officer. I am sure that Members of the House will agree that it is a most desirable step forward that ratings in the Royal Navy can now achieve a comparable position with the warrant officers of the other Services.
Finally, I should like to refer to part of the discussion in another place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he intended to introduce an Amendment. This would provide that civilians sentenced by court martial should be able to appeal against sentence to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. At present, civilians in this position are in exactly the same position as members of the Services. After their trials are confirmed and reviewed they may then appeal against conviction to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, but if they wish to appeal only against sentence they can only do this to the Defence Council.
It was argued in another place that, while there were clearly good reasons for civilians accompanying the forces overseas to be tried by court martial rather than by the local courts, it was nevertheless desirable to give them, as far as possible, the same right of appeal against sentence to a higher court as civilians would have in this country. It was not possible to lay an Amendment to achieve this purpose in another place because the actual working out of the Amendment has proved to be a good deal more difficult and complicated than we had expected. We intend, though, to ensure that appropriate amendment to the Bill is made during its passage through the House, and I thought it was appropriate to inform the House at this stage of our intentions.
It is now a parliamentary convention that a Bill which affects the discipline of the Services should be referred to a Select Committee. If the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill, we therefore intend to move to send it to a Select

Committee for examination. When the Select Committee has reported on the Bill, it will of course we recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.
It is possible that hon. Members of the House and of the Select Committee will have criticisms to make of this legislation, but the Government accept full and total responsibility for the introduction of the legislation into the House. I think it would be the wish of the House as a whole that we should express our thanks to those who over many years have spent much time and work in the preparation of this codification of law, although the ultimate responsibility for its introduction rests on our shoulders.
I commend the Bill to the House.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. George Thomson: I should like immediately to join the hon. Gentleman the Minister of State in expressing the appreciation of the House to those who have done such immense labour in this great task of codification of the various Service Discipline Acts.
We on this side of the House welcome the Bill in principle, subject to the close scrutiny of its detailed provisions by the Select Committee which the right hon. Gentleman proposed should be set up at the conclusion of the debate. I was grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the Government's decision to introduce the Bill first in another place and for the way in which he said it. Nevertheless, we on this side of the House wish to put on record that we believe the Government were wrong in their judgment. I accept immediately that this was done in the interests of the management of Government business between the two Houses and not with any sinister intention of eroding the constitutional rights of the House of Commons. The rights of this House in regard to the raising and keeping of standing forces in peace time go deep into the history of parliamentary democracy and I feel that it would have been wiser not to have disturbed them.
This Bill is in direct descent from the historic annual Army and Air Force Acts which were never passed in the Commons until the Commons had voted the Supply to determine the number of men in the Services each year. The position is summed up in page 769 of Erskine


May. I draw from that a rather different conclusion from the one the noble Lord was seeking to draw, but perhaps it might be simpler to refer to what was actually said in Erskine May:
By the procedure laid down in the legislation of 1955, the Commons, in addition to their control over the number of the naval, military and air forces, and the yearly sums to be appropriated for their support, reserve to themselves"—
these are the words on which emphasis may appropriately be put—
the power of determining whether a standing army shall be kept in being in time of peace.
The noble Lord referred to that excellent and entertaining film about the life of Cromwell. It reminded us that one king lost his head and another lost his throne over this principle. It was rather unwise of the Government to raise their ghosts.
There are also contemporary reasons, quite apart from the historical reasons, why this principle is important to the House. The House is therefore right to be a little sensitive about its position. We are dealing in the Bill with the liberty, and to some extent with the life, of our constituents who are Servicemen. They do not have a number of the usual channels which are open to civilians for redress of grievance if convicted. Members on all sides are very much the watchdogs for those Servicemen.
I say frankly to the noble Lord that we on this side do not particularly like the fact that the Secretary of State for such a large spending Department is in another place. It is for the Government to choose whether they wish to arrange their affairs in that way, but if they have the Secretary of State for Defence in another place then they ought to be particularly careful about the traditional rights of the House of Commons. In fact, I do not think the Government helped the House of Lords by their action, though they may have assisted the expedition of their own business.
Their action forced the House of Lords to take this Bill at a galloping pace. The Government were in such a hurry in the other place that they were not even able to introduce there one important Amendment which, as the noble Lord said, they had hoped to introduce before the Bill left that House. Their Lordships would have

been better served if they had had the benefit of the considered conclusions of a Select Committee of this House.
It will be five years before this matter comes before the House again and I have no doubt that by that time there will be a very different Government in power. However, I wish to put on record that we think that the Government were wrong in their judgment on this matter and we feel it should not happen that way again.
This is a complex Bill and it is difficult to have a Second Reading in the usual sense. It is essentially a Bill appropriate for scrutiny by Select Committee. It presents particular difficulties to laymen in the House. I once undertook a course on how to put people on charges in one of the Services, but I never had an opportunity to practise what I was taught and I have now forgotten all I was told. I can claim that my own military career was as free of crime as it was free of any distinction. The only time I nearly fell foul of the military code was when I was found on the parade ground at Cranwell eating a piece of home-made cake that my mother had just sent me. It was too irresistible to wait any longer to have a nibble at it.

Lord Balniel: Dundee cake?

Mr. Thomson: No doubt it was Dundee cake. I wonder under what provision of this Bill that misbehaviour would have come. Would it have been conduct unbecoming to the character of a temporary acting, but I am happy to say paid, sergeant in the Royal Air Force?
The noble Lord has told the House that the Bill follows a report of a previous Select Committee in 1966 under the then Labour Government. We for our part welcome the achievement of a single common code of offences and a common range of maximum penalties. Servicemen will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, for the successful campaign that he waged in the early 1950s for these changes. He waged that battle with the unique panache he commands and he was able to ensure that every five years there is an opportunity for a thorough examination of Service discipline.
These Clauses, although extremely technical, involve important human


issues. Above all, the Bill involves the task of reconciling the individual rights of those in the Services with the necessities of the profession of arms. It is sensible to have a five-yearly review. Service discipline inevitably must be seen against the background of a changing society. Servicemen no longer live in a separate, insulated category. They are very much skilled professionals, operating within society as a whole.
Concepts of crime and of the treatment of crime have been changing fast in our society over recent years. Changes in the civilian criminal law must inevitably be reflected in the military law. In addition, the professional work of the Serviceman has been changing rapidly. The formal declaration of a conventional war now seems almost as archaic and old-fashioned as the hansom cab. The Serviceman faces all sorts of new challenges and problems. He may find himself involved as part of a United Nations peacekeeping force, where his right to use force may be shrouded in a good deal of ambiguity; or he may now find himself dealing with the new military problem of urban terrorism, such as that in Northern Ireland. That again is bound to raise new problems for the military law.
There is also the tragic innovation of aerial hijacking which the Bill recognises creates new legal problems. It was mentioned in another place that Clause 71, in Part V, reflects the remarkable discovery that some civilian passengers in military aircraft are outside the jurisdiction of any system of law during the period when they are in that aircraft. As an old civilian traveller on military aircraft, I have been pondering what splendid opportunities of lawlessness I must have missed by ignorance of the fact that I was in total immunity during the period I was travelling through the air as a guest of the Royal Air Force.
I suppose there are three broad categories of offence which have to be dealt with in terms of military law. First of all, there are the offences which would come under the criminal law in civilian life, which is a straightforward matter. Secondly, there are the offences such as absence without leave, which is not a crime in civilian life, but which it is necessary to regard as an offence given the problems of organising an effective military

force. There would be general agreement about that, and that distinction is fairly straightforward. Thirdly, there are the offences against morale, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). It is more difficult in that respect to determine where to strike the right balance, and there was some discussion of these problems in another place. No doubt the Select Committee, once it is formed, will wish to look more closely at the problems.
I note that that ringing phrase, "conduct unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman", is disappearing for ever from the martial landscape, along with the Admiralty and the tot of rum. But, in our egalitarian age, I wonder why "scandalous conduct", even in this amended Bill, should be an offence committed by officers but not, apparently, by any other Servicemen. Why do officers have a monopoly of this sin?
While on this subject, why should there be a completely different set of penalties for different ranks in the Services? We have just welcomed the fact that a common code of offences and penalties is being established by the Bill between the Services, but between ranks there is a most intricate hierarchy of penalties. This is all set out in splendid detail in Clause 38 of the amended Bill.
There, one finds that, in the case of an officer, for example, detention cannot be imposed, nor can reduction in rank, apparently, as I read the Bill. He is exempt from minor punishments. Warrant officers also have their own special omissions. The same is true for sailors below the rank of leading seaman, and there is a separate category for ratings themselves. Perhaps that is a matter of principle which the Select Committee might look at more closely.
The noble Lord mentioned one of the major matters of principle involved in the Bill, the retention of the death penalty for certain categories of military offence. Like the noble Lord, I speak as a strong abolitionist in regard to capital punishment for murder. I notice, first of all, that the Bill reduces the number of offences for which the capital penalty can be invoked. It is being removed altogether in the case of mutiny with violence or the threat of violence in peacetime. Second, it is being retained for a limited


range of offences in the face of the enemy or for positively assisting the enemy.
In time of war, when the State itself sanctions the killing of an enemy, when, indeed, killing is likely to be widespread and possibly indiscriminate, the circumstances are very different and give rise to quite different considerations from those which apply to the abolition of capital punishment for murder. Indeed, as the noble Lord said, the abolition of capital punishment for murder applies equally whether that crime is committed within the Services or outside.
The second matter of general principle which arose during the deliberations in another place was the question whether the operations of the Parliamentary Commissioner should be extended to personal matters within the Services. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at this question. As has been explained, they are at present considering a Report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and this was one of its recommendations.
I think that there would be general agreement that the Parliamentary Commissioner should not deal in any way with disciplinary offences. That would be as inappropriate as his dealing with the activity of the criminal courts in civilian life. But there are some special considerations regarding the position of Servicemen. As I said, by entering a military life, they voluntarily surrender a certain number of the normal channels of redress of grievance which are open to the ordinary civilian. The Discipline Acts provide a machinery for redress of grievance and I think that the Services are scrupulous in operating that machinery, but the Select Committee took the view that the Parliamentary Commissioner should have the right to consider whether that machinery had operated effectively in every case. There is the question of justice being seen to be done as well as simply being done.
I do not expect the Government to commit themselves on this matter at this stage. Nor would I like to commit my party finally on this matter. I simply say that the problem should be looked at sympathetically. I am not clear whether this would come within the terms of reference of the Select Committee,

but by the time that it reports back to the House, perhaps we could have looked at this question again.
It is against the background of those comments that I join the noble Lord in welcoming the Bill.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: Both my noble Friend the Minister of State and the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) have stuck closely in their speeches to the detailed legal provisions of the Bill. I would seek to do the same, because, although it has been known—I checked my memory by looking at past debates on these Bills—for the debate to go a good deal wider, particularly in Lord Wigg's day, and turn on the general philosophy of the maintenance of standing forces and connected questions, it is appropriate, I think, as we have a season of general defence debates to come shortly, that we should follow the example of the two Front Bench speakers.
As to whether there was any constitutional impropriety about the Bill going through another place before it came here, I was rather more in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman than with my noble Friend. I was puzzled by my noble Friend's reference to what he called a "Supply Bill". I failed to find the animal in what was admittedly a cursory reading of the two pages of Erskine May, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman was right in his explanation of why it was all right for the Bill to go first to the Lords. He reminded us that the ultimate control of this House over the existence of the Armed Forces comes in Vote A, in control of the Estimates.
The change in procedure in 1955 and the change by which this Bill now happens only every five years, instead of every year, came about to a certain extent by accident. Again, I am taxing my memory, but I think that in 1954 the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, then the hon. Member for Dudley, and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), possibly more in a spirit of faction than in an attempt to be constructive, put down about 22 pages of Amendments to the Army Act. The Act was exempted business, and if it were not got through by a certain date there would be no Army. The effect of their strategy


was to bring the then Minister of Defence, Lord Head, to the point when he had no option but to surrender. He was obliged to ask the two hon. Gentlemen for their terms.
I do not think that the hon. Gentlemen in question had given the matter as much thought as they might have applied to it before that stage was reached because their terms were that there should be instituted a Select Committee and that there should be this five-yearly procedure. I agree that it is a good idea to have a Select Committee, and the House was, therefore, served well by their strategy. But I am not sure that it did not originate, like so many things, by accident.
I do not see any impropriety in the Bill starting off in the Lords. The reason why it is has emerged in this way is that at this time of the year the Lords find themselves short of Bills with which to deal, while they are very much overloaded in July. The authorities of the House looked into the position and thought it would be a good idea to enable the Lords to finish their labours at the end of the Session in a more leisurely way. I hope that if it happens again it will not happen as it has this year, with the Commons losing a week at Christmas in an effort to lighten the labours of the other place at the end of the summer.
My noble Friend referred to a change in procedure which the Bill introduces; namely, the making of the Naval Discipline Act quinquennially renewable instead of being a piece of standing permanent legislation. This deserves more than a passing reference because the point is historically interesting, if nothing else. This House has always in the past welcomed without question the permanent legislation of the Navy, but has looked much more critically at the Army and, later, in association with it, the Air Force.
I recall answering Questions—they were tabled in almost identical terms—for the Army and the then Under-Secretary was answering for the Admiralty, about the eviction of an Army wife and a Navy wife respectively from their quarters. When I answered the Question about the Army wife the House was severe with the Army authorities for having acted hastily and disturbing the family. However, when my hon. Friend answered for the Navy, the attitude of the

House was rather like saying, "Why has this troublesome woman made things awkward for the British Navy?" This reflects a genuine feeling which the House has had for many years, and it is historically interesting to note that the Navy is now on the same footing as the other Service.
I am not sure who decides the actual composition of the Select Committee, but it does not seem necessary for a Minister to be on this body. There has always been a Minister on it, and this has involved a great deal of detailed work, though the Minister of the day need not be aware of much of this detail.
Indeed, a Minister on a Select Committee is neither flesh, fish nor fowl. He has an interest in the content of the Bill before the Committee, unlike the back-bench members of the Committee. But he cannot be expected to know in detail the answers to the questions which the other members of the Committee are bound to ask about the Bill in the same way as the witnesses who are invited to come before the Committee will know those answers.
It is for consideration whether it is not a waste of a Minister's time to be on such a Select Committee, especially considering that the Amendments that may emerge from that Committee and come before the House have to be answered for by the Minister at that stage.
Why is there no legislation in the Bill consequent on the acceptance by the Government of the Donaldson Report? Perhaps what the Government intend to do about that Report does not require legislation, though this was not made clear at the time of the anouncement before Christmas. However, there are Clauses regarding terms of engagement under the 1955 Act, and I would like to know whether legislation is not in the Bill because it is not ready—in which case, will it come later?—or because it is not necessary.
Will my noble Friend spare a thought for those who, as part of their military duties and education, must learn military law? I have been looking at the 1955 Act, and, like the Navy and R.A.F. Discipline Acts, it presents a mass of interleavings, sidelines and marginal notes. The whole process of the unification of the Services must mean changes in the whole ambit of military law, and this will make it difficult for


those who need to learn military law as part of their duties.
There must be a case for some sort of consolidation Measure. My noble Friend explained why one Act for all three Services was not possible within the framework by which he has decided to proceed, and I accept his explanation. However, is it not possible for those concerned to be provided with a "fair copy" to help them with their labours?
I was glad to hear my noble Friend's remarks about the provision enabling financial recovery in connection with a judgment for debt to be made from a Service man's pay. I am sure that hon. Member's have come across cases—they are not at all numerous—of a Service man moving out of an area and perhaps inadvertently leaving behind unpaid debts. It is right that those who may be the victims of these occurrences, which are not frequent, should be protected, and this provision is, therefore, welcome.
I wish to raise a constituency point which I have no doubt concerns the constituents of many hon. Members. I refer to low-flying aircraft. We are aware that this type of training must occur, but if it must happen over the air space of this country and inevitably cause a certain amount of annoyance, this upheaval must be kept to the minimum. I have always found when writing to the Ministry that complaints are carefully examined and verified and that one can always rely on individual cases to be investigated. The whole subject is taken very seriously indeed.
It is not a bad thing that those who understandably complain should realise that, as a matter of Service discipline, undue annoyance should not be caused, that pilots in training are under a duty to make sure that they do not cause it, and that if it is caused frivolously it can result in dismissal from the Service. It is fair that this should be realised, but I hope that my noble Friend will see that the rules are maintained, and will maintain with the same care his past practice of investigating complaints with a view to disciplinary action should it ever be necessary.
I hope that he will also look again at a proposal that was being kicked around when the former Government were in office, that low flying training down the

centre of the Pennines might avoid even the extreme western fringe of my constituency by the use of another path, although I realise the difficulty of doing that having regard to civil airfields and the congestion of our air space.
I welcome the Bill. I enjoyed my noble Friend's explanation of it, and feel enlightened by it.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: This debate seems like old ground to me. I feel almost as though I were making my maiden speech all over again, though I do not seek the indulgence of the House.
Of the two mild protests that I wish to make, the first concerns the present composition of the Ministry of Defence. I noticed that my Brigade magazine recently commended the take-over of the Ministry by the Grenadier Guards, so I felt it my duty to be present today and at least to put in a word for the Coldstream Guards.
My other protest concerns what all speakers have so far pointed out, which is that the Bill has first been dealt with in another place. It was more or less by accident that I found that out, but when I trooped along to listen to the Second Reading I was amazed to find that I had missed it. Reading the speeches on that occasion one finds the excuse made for the Bill starting its life there was that the other place wanted some work. That may be quite all right, but what happened was that the House of Lords short-legged the Leader of this House by getting through Second Reading, and the Committee, Report and remaining stages in four hours, four minutes flat.
The Bill contains 77 Clauses and two Schedules and affects 350,000 Servicemen and their families. What was not greatly understood in another place was that it also affects quite a number of civilians and their families. Punishments for Service crimes range from the death penalty to reprimand. That being so, it is no wonder that only those involved in the Services, or who may have been involved in the Services, become interested because here there are no precedents. There is nothing in the way of an hon. Member's mailbag filled with representations from people in the Forces, or from pressure groups, trade union or otherwise, asking that various Amendments should be made on their behalf.


That being so, it is the duty of us all to subject the Bill to close scrutiny, and this I shall seek to do. I apologise for the fact that owing to other duties I have not been able to do as much homework on the Measure as I should have liked, but I intend, if chosen to serve, to busy myself with it in the Select Committee.
It is becoming customary on occasions such as this to refer to those interested in the subject. Here we have distinguished soldiers, sailors and airmen—and, I think, marines. According to the last edition of my Brigade magazine we have in the House 40 members or ex-members of the Brigade of Guards. Here is one of the best trade unions of all. If one adds messengers and other members of the staff the number becomes immense. We have all ranks from major-generals to a couple of my old company commanders, and sergeant majors and warrant officers, and so on right down to myself. If ever we had to form a House of Commons company, the amount of work that would fall to me would be quite fantastic, as I would be the only one left available to do it.
We do not need just the view of those who have dished it out; those not on the receiving end. My brushes with authority have been perhaps a little more extensive than have those of people not at the receiving end. I do not say that I speak with any great authority because of that. I was never court martialled, but from a reading of the Bill I must assume that I was perilously close to it at times, or my C.O. must have been very understanding or lenient on occasion, or I was clever enough not to be caught. Nevertheless, my Service crimes had nothing at all to do with what might be considered civil crimes.
I see to it that I get around the Forces quite a lot during most recesses. I spent Christmas and the New Year with a certain sergeant of the Second Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in Berlin. That was a wonderful experience, and I believe it to be about the best way to find out how Service life affects people. When I asked: "Do you know that when the House resumes after the Christmas Recess there is to be a five-year review of Service punishments?", none of those I asked knew anything about it whatever. That particularly worried me, and I shall wish

to say something about it in the Select Committee. We have to find some way in which information about such matters can drift through the ranks so that what is decided can be seen to be absolutely necessary for discipline.
This measure is one in a continuing series of Bills. When we refer to members of the Armed Forces we are talking all the time about professionals and specialists. That is what we have in the Army today. The men themselves consider themselves to be professionals and specialists. Some people might throw up their hands in horror at the civilisation of the Army these days, but it is something that will continue and all we can hope to do on occasions like this is to make sure that the disciplinary codes keep pace with such developments.
One has only to stay with a battalion to notice the terrific changes that are taking place, not just over the years but over a matter of months. It is nothing out of the ordinary for the C.O. of a battalion to find that one of his biggest duties is not the care of the troops under his command but the care of their families. The C.O. of one battalion had more than 250 children under five years of age under his care. As a great deal of a C.O.'s time must be devoted to that, it is obvious that nowadays commanding officers must not only be first-class soldiers but also be first-class administration and welfare officers.
I know that in the Bill we can do nothing about the civil law, but I should like the number of Army crimes which are not civilian crimes to be kept to the minimum.
I thank the Minister for giving us a better explanation than was given in another place of the facts relating to the death penalty provision. Since 1939 this provision has been used very sparingly; there have been only four executions under this power, although there might have been two or three more if the Army could have got their hands on those who were responsible for one particularly disgraceful incident.
I have been worried for some considerable time at the fact that apparently members of the Armed Forces can still be sentenced to death for murder. Any British soldier who commits a crime off-duty is responsible under the civil law of the country in which he is stationed, so


it would appear that it is still possible for a British soldier to be sentenced to death and even executed in a country which retains the death penalty. Perhaps this matter can be taken up in close detail in the Select Committee.
I shall also want to have it justified to me why dismissal with disgrace should be retained in the punishment list. Dismissal would have to be accepted. Not only have the words "with disgrace" lost their meaning, but as there are some crimes in the Army which are not crimes in civilian life it is unfair that a man for the rest of his life should have to carry the stigma of having been dismissed with disgrace.
I am glad that the offences of scandalous behaviour and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman have gone. Nowadays even the officers regard themselves as professionals. Everyone in the Forces is trying to do an efficient job. In my stay with the Second Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in Berlin I was impressed by the togetherness of the troops. I spent the afternoon of Christmas Eve in the support company club of that regiment. It was a wonderful afternoon when the officers, warrant officers, sergeants and men gat together and talked about things in a rational way. I cannot conceive of such a thing happening five years ago.
We shall have to be on the watch all the time in our scrutiny of the Bill for acts which are offences if committed by officers but not offences if committed by other ranks and vice versa. All members of the British Armed Forces are now professionals. Such distinctions may have been necessary during the time of the Indian Mutiny or the Boston Tea Party, but they are no longer necessary.
On the face of it, the new provision that someone sentenced to imprisonment is automatically dismissed the Service is an advance, but I am worried in particular about the position of men who signed on at the age of, say, 18, for 22 years and who will be 40 on the completion of their period of service. By the end of about 18 or 20 years the only thing that such a man is looking forward to is the end of his 22 years' service and his pension so that he can adapt himself to civilian life with his pension behind him. A man in this

category may have an unblemished career for, say, 18 years and then do something stupid or unfortunate in the last few years of his service and be sentenced to two years' imprisonment and automatically dismissed the service. I shall want to examine this provision very carefully to see if there is any protection for men in this category.
Another aspect of Service discipline which is worrying me greatly arises from the unfortunate situation facing the Army and the country in general in Northern Ireland. It is amazing how well discipline is holding up there under the terrific pressures of T.V. cameras and commentators going round with troops in their back pockets, so to speak. This has led to some unfortunate incidents in families which have sons serving out in Northern Ireland. There should be some machinery to obviate these invidious occurrences, because it must be difficult for a man from Northern Ireland who signed on in the British Army to find himself posted back to serve in Northern Ireland. In my early days if I had had to go with the British Army to Northern Ireland I should have found it very difficult to explain this to my grandfather, knowing his views.
Is there any machinery to ensure that such men can be sifted out? I recognise that men who join the Army volunteer to serve anywhere at any time, but we must expect servicemen to have feelings in these circumstances and we should attempt to secure that nobody is forced to serve in a country in such circumstances against his will. The fact that there have been invidious incidents is proved by the figures far absence without leave amongst those posted to Northern Ireland. Care must be exercised about the disciplinary aspect of service in Northern Ireland. One irate mother in my constituency phoned to say that she had heard on television about a certain guardsman who had done a certain thing and that his name had been mentioned; she wanted to know if it was her son. That is one of the terrible things that can happen in such situations. It caused a great deal of distress to that lady and the whole family. Unfortunately, it turned out to be her son, but I went to see him later and explained to him. The matter was no fault of the Army or the Defence Department. I can only say a big "Thank you" to the Department for


the co-operation I have had from it on such problems.
I intend to give the Bill a great deal of scrutiny. The House should show the Forces that we are doing this, because they have no direct representation. Many Servicemen—I am talking about those on long engagements—do not consider themselves to be represented by any Member because they do not feel that they have a root in any one place. If they are asked who is their Member of Parliament, they will say, "What do I take as my last address? Is it my last Army camp?" Many of them feel disenfranchised in one way or another.
I am not really suggesting an Ombudsman for the Services. I have come to the conclusion that at times I am more or less the Ombudsman for quite a number of disgruntled Servicemen. Letters from many of them seem to end up on my desk, and dealing with some of them is a labour of love for me. We must try to make sure that the Armed Forces have a representation in the House which makes itself felt here. We must find a machinery for doing that, particularly on Measures such as the Bill before us, so that we can obtain the true feeling not only of the Army Council and the Defence Department but of the men. We could get some good ideas from some of them on what some of the punishments should be. We might get a few surprises as well. It could only help if Servicemen felt that they had a voice here and had a say in the decisions being made for them. It could also go a long way to help the recruiting figures, which happily have shown a bit of a spurt lately.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I wish to speak about a fairly technical matter concerning Clause 75, on which I have some doubts which I hope can be resolved.
One of the features of a Bill dealing with the Armed Services in a comprehensive way, as the Bill does, is that it covers not only the three Services but more than one jurisdiction. The Bill commendably seeks to iron out divergences between the law of England and the law of Scotland in Clause 75, dealing with a technicality of evidence. My doubt is whether the amendment to previous legislation which it proposes is apt to achieve the desired result. The Clause

attempts to achieve the same result in Scotland as is achieved in England, whereby certain documents are admissible in evidence or are evidence of any matter stated in them. It is provided that such documents
shall be sufficient evidence of the matter so stated in such proceedings in Scotland.
My doubt arises on the use of the word "sufficient" in this context. It is tolerably clear from a quick perusal of the Bill that three classes of documents are in view: first, affidavits; second, records of court proceedings, such as courts martial; third, various certificates. The difficulty I have with "sufficient" arises in this respect. If we say that evidence is legally sufficient, that means that it may be admitted by a court and considered on its merits. I think that we are also saying "considered on its merits without regard to the legal necessity for any other evidence". But a court has also to assess the sufficiency of evidence in another sense. Having accepted the evidence before it as sufficient in a legal sense, it must decide whether that evidence is sufficient in weight to allow it to achieve a certain result—for example, to decide for one side or the other in the contest before it.
I feel that the problem with which the Clause seeks to grapple is primarily that of dealing with affidavits and certificates. It is a well understood practice in the law of England, though not in the law of Scotland, to take the evidence of persons outwith the United Kingdom, or in places inaccessible to the courts, in written form. An English court has no difficulty in regarding such a written affidavit as equivalent to the evidence of a witness given in court before it. But in Scotland such a document would normally require something more; it would require, at least, for instance, someone to speak to it as evidence in the case. Obviously, Clause 75 wants to eliminate the need for that, and that seems to me a reasonable requirement.
The second situation with which I think the Clause tries to cope is that where, according to the law of Scotland, a document would not by itself be legally sufficient and it would be necessary to have corroboration by a witness giving oral testimony to the same effect.
Those are the two things the Clause tries to do—on the one hand to allow


things like affidavits to be legally sufficient, without any further testimony, and on the other to exclude the need for corroboration where the law of Scotland would require it. Those are laudable objectives if we are trying to achieve a uniform code of law for the two countries and the three Services. My doubt about the aptness of the wording of the Clause arises from the use simply of the word "sufficient". Saying that
it shall be sufficient evidence
does not make clear whether the object of the Bill is merely to make the evidence legally sufficient or to go beyond that and say that the testimony in the document is to be sufficient for all purposes. In other words, it does not make clear whether it means to exclude an argument that the document before the court, although legally sufficient, is not sufficient evidence to establish the point which is sought to be established.
The questiton I have raised is a short one, but it is important, because the House would not wish the effect of a document produced in a Scottish court to be substantially different from the effect of the same document produced in an English court, and the object of the Clause is to remove that doubt. If the word "sufficient" could be taken in the sense that I have put forward, as referring to the weight of evidence and not simply its legal admissibility, it would have the effect that a litigant in Scotland would be barred from arguing to the court that although it was legally sufficient the evidence was not sufficient in weight.
I should be very grateful to hear from the Government whether they have canvassed this matter properly. If they have not, I hope that they will look into it seriously and that they can resolve my doubts about it today or at a later stage.

6.9 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am in general entirely in favour of bringing Service disciplinary codes up to date, which in essence is what the Bill does. I agree very largely with the remarks from both sides of the House about this aspect. I am also, with slightly less enthusiasm, in favour of unifying the disciplinary codes applicable to the three Armed Services.
Service discipline must always be of a different nature from that in civilian life. This is perhaps implicit in the very use of the word "Service" to describe the Armed Forces of the Crown. But in the process of bringing Service discipline up to date it would be an error to over-reach and make it too liberal too fast.
I also put it to the House that there is no need to make Service discipline over-liberal, because Service discipline, certainly in my experience, has been most fairly applied through many generations. I think also that the appeal procedure, even under existing conditions, is very adequate, and personally I am suspicious of the idea of the Ombudsman being able to extend his area of operations within the Services, so to speak. Without having a closed mind on this subject, I feel that at present the appeal procedure is adequate, and one does not want, so to speak, to fog the issue or complicate the life of the Serviceman or the officer by bringing the Ombudsman into it.
It would also be fair to say that Service discipline results in wonderfully good industrial relations, if I may use that term, within the Services.

Mr. Concannon: indicated assent.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding. It is, in fact, a lesson to the rest of the country. I am sure that I speak for all three Services in this.
In an effort to rationalise, I think that it is very important not to let the essential difference between the three Services be blurred for a matter of drafting or administrative convenience. The disciplinary circumstances, after all, in a submarine are quite different from those in the Second Regiment of Fusiliers stationed in Berlin. I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who spoke about the situation in Berlin, was surprised to see the close relationship or understanding between officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks, as I understood him. That situation has existed within the submarine service since the beginning.

Mr. Concannon: I do not think that I said in that context that I was surprised to see it. I was surprised at the extent


it has moved over the few years even since I left the Forces.

Rear Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am glad that the Government are giving attention so early in this Session to the conditions in the Armed Forces. Obviously, as my noble Friend said, there has been a great deal of labour in working out this very detailed Bill. I am glad most of all that this matter is now under consideration because of a point made by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence when he said, in a recent lecture at the Royal United Services Institution:
… we can't succeed in recruiting voluntary forces unless we, as a Government, are seen and heard to attach real importance to Defence.
That process is going on under this present Government and is long overdue.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: The hon. and gallant Gentleman might direct his attention to one particular aspect of the Bill. It removes Section 2 of the Naval Discipline Act in relation to the duty imposed upon a naval officer to use his utmost exertion to bring his ship into action and to pursue an enemy whom it is his duty to pursue. That provision has been deleted. As a gallant seaman himself, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us his views on the deletion of these duties?

Rear Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, but I think that it is really implicit, certainly in the training of all the Forces. It probably hardly needs saying. But, as an aside, it is probably worth remarking that, in the legislation—and the Select Committee will have to take care of this—it is very important that no distinction should be drawn between what happens in peace and what happens in war, because peace and war are very difficult to distinguish in the present day. I want to quote from a speech made in the House not long ago on the subject. Stating that there was a completely different dimension in war, the speaker said:
The main battlefield now lies not on the plains of Europe but elsewhere. It lies in the steaming jungles of Laos and the ruined cities of Vietnam. It lies in the bazaars of Bangkok and the city council of Singapore. It lies in the swamps of Borneo and in the minds of 80 million Indonesians. It lies in the wrangles within the Indian Congress and

in the swollen bellies of starving babies in Calcutta. It lies beneath the sweltering sands of Arabia and in the rumour, gossip and intrigue of the small Gulf States."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 285–6.]
So it goes on. The point I am making is that it would be misleading and confusing to the Services to have different sets of circumstances in peace and war in the legislation we are to go into in detail. The quotation about this new background I agree with—because I was the chap who made the speech.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) gave a most eloquent quotation from his own speech and I am sure that it will go down in history in various anthologies of English prose. But I cannot agree with him altogether on the question of distinction between peace and war in relation to this Bill. Of course, it is much more difficult than it used to be to distinguish between the two. Very often, there are no formal declarations of war. Perhaps it is a police action, so called, or a United Nations action, as in Korea. But I hope that at least some of the penalties in the Bill, such as the death penalty—which the Minister of State spoke of with great restraint and with some sympathy—would hardly ever be applicable in peace time. I think the hon. Gentleman said that there had been one execution since the war—I think we know which one that was—and I suggest, with respect to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that there is a distinction to be drawn there.
Secondly, I do not altogether agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman on a minor point he made—the use of the word "service". That does not distinguish the Armed Forces from the entire civilian community by any means. There are all sorts of ways in which people serve as civilians, in the police, the Fire Service and other ways. Mr. Speaker himself is the servant of this House, and so on. So I do not think that the Armed Forces have any monopoly of the admirable concept of service.
There is another point on which I agree to some extent with the hon. and gallant Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)—that is on the greatly improved relations in our Armed Forces


between officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks generally. In my experience, this has been most noticeable in the Royal Marines, particularly in a Royal Marine Commando. I think one can generally observe a very great improvement, which probably reflects the general rise in the educational standards among other ranks.
It is not universal yet, unfortunately. One still hears of unfortunate incidents like that rather ridiculous but deplorable recent case in which a number of sailors were drunk and appeared to have enacted a sort of charade. Discipline in that ship must have been extremely bad anyway, and the relations between the officers and ratings not as they should have been, from all accounts. But I hope that that sort of offence would not be regarded as the most serious kind of mutiny. I cannot remember the result of the charges. Those involved were quite severely punished, I think, and perhaps they had to be.
In my interjection in the speech of the Minister of State, I referred to Clause 28. He was good enough to say that this was a matter which could be dealt with by the Select Committee, which would go into all the details. That is naturally so, but I would not myself accept that Clause 28 is merely what one, in another context, calls a "mere Committee point". An important principle is involved.
This is the kind of offence to which we are accustomed in what is strictly war time; in the Second World War, for example. However, in peacetime, or in one of these curious marginal situations which are half war and half peace, there are some dangers in enacting something so widely drawn and so vague as this Clause—"Offences against morale". It says:
Any person subject to military law who spreads (whether orally, in writing, by signal, or otherwise) reports relating to operations of Her Majesty's forces, of any forces co-operating therewith, or of any part of any of those forces, being reports calculated to create despondency … shall … be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years …".
That is a somewhat dangerous principle, and I hope that if it goes through unamended, it will be applied with great restraint and discretion.
It is easy to think of situations in which a soldier, or even an N.C.O. or an

officer, talking freely with his colleagues, might comment in a disparaging way on the performance of some allied force, perhaps in a United Nations peacekeeping exercise. One can think of the example of Northern Ireland, or Cyprus, or Vietnam, where we should now be committed, if the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester had had his way, for I remember his speech from the Opposition Front Bench when he said that we ought to send some warships there. It would be almost impossible for any civilised officer or other rank not to comment on the brutality and corruption which would be so evident all around him in Vietnam in certain allied forces. There are dangers in Clause 28, but I will say no more about it at the moment.
I wanted to speak chiefly about a particular aspect of naval discipline; that is to say, the conditions in the Royal Naval detention quarters at Portsmouth. I know that the hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Navy in the Ministry of Defence is very much concerned about conditions in this establishment, as was his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen.) I drew my hon. Friend's attention to them—I am sure that he was aware of them—three and a half years ago when I visited a constituent in the detention quarters at Portsmouth. I found that, although, of course, they were hygienic and no doubt humanely run, they were extraordinarily backward by comparison with even one of our civilian prisons, which are not at present a model to the world because of overcrowding and so on.
My constituent said, "I am glad that you have come on a Saturday afternoon, because on Saturdays we are locked up from midday until Sunday morning." That seemed to be a long time for a teenager to be locked up in solitary confinement in a cell. He went on to say, "Also, we have to do two tasks on a Saturday." I asked what he meant and he replied, "Most days we do one task, but on Saturdays we do two, because we are locked up and there is nothing else to do." I asked, "What tasks, what sort of work, do you do?" He described the process which is most familiarly known to students of English history and literature as picking oakum. It seemed to me rather extraordinary that in the 1960s able fit young men, even if


they have committed a military offence, should still be picking oakum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton slightly refined the term later by pointing out that there were three stages, or phases, in the process and that perhaps only the first could be accurately described as picking oakum, while the third was the greatly refined and sophisticated process of making a kind of matting out of the oakum picked. But I still think that there should be more variety of constructive tasks available, which would help slightly in the rehabilitation of naval ratings confined in these quarters.
The aim should be to assimilate military and naval detention barracks and the punishment and procedures in them to the ideal always set forth by the Home Office for civilian prisons, although it is not always lived up to in civilian prisons—that the emphasis should be on rehabilitation rather than mere punishment.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as always, would wish to be fair and that before leaving the subject of detention quarters—for his remarks will be widely reported in the Press—he will wish to agree that admirable results are produced throughout the naval disciplinary system of which the detention quarters are only a small part.

Mr. Driberg: I agree. On one matter the hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong. All my remarks are invariably ignored by the Press, except when they can be libellously distorted. I agree with the main point that he makes. Even these rather backward detention quarters were humanely administered so far as I could tell, and were perfectly clean, but I did not think that they were suited for rehabilitation.
I have another comment which in a way is related to that. The constituent whom I was then visiting was one of those lads whose position was dealt with by the Donaldson Committee, whose report was issued fairly recently, with not very encouraging results from the Government. He was one of those who, out of boredom, for a change, had signed on at 15 and had repeatedly gone absent and was apparently quite unsuited to the life and discipline of the Royal Navy. I persuaded him to give himself up and I turned him in personally at the police

station, which I think is the best thing to do when these lads become desperate and are on the run. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) was good enough to have this lad examined by a Service psychiatrist.
This is a point which I ventured to make in the evidence which I submitted to the Donaldson Committee. Premature release, so to speak, whether on compassionate grounds or release by purchase, is always difficult for the Service authorities, which have to keep a balance between the requirements of the Services and the interest of the individual. That is perfectly well understood. But what I would say to any hon. Member who is trying to secure the release of a Serviceman on the ground that he is not suited to the Service and that it is a waste of time and money to keep him in the Service is that he should ask the Minister responsible to allow the man to see an independent civilian psychiatric consultant as well as a Service psychiatrist.
In this case the two psychiatrists differed remarkably in their estimates of the man's character and potentialities. In January, 1967, I was advised by the Ministry that he had been examined by a psychiatrist who could find no psychiatric disorder. Later in January my hon. Friend wrote to me and said that the psychiatrist had found no mental disorder which rendered him unfit to stand trial or even to continue in the Service. So he pleaded guilty and got ninety days' detention. My hon. Friend added, as is the custom with letters from the Ministry of Defence tinder any Government:
I sincerely hope that
so-and-so
will earn his full one third remission by good behaviour and that on release he will then be able to settle down to a useful career in the Navy.
I then persuaded by hon. Friend to let an independent consultant psychiatrist examine this person. I do not wish to cast any reflection on the Service psychiatrist, who no doubt gave an honest opinion after a rather short interview, but the civilian psychiatrist came to a totally different conclusion, so that in July my hon. Friend wrote:
I have now seen this second opinion and it indicates that there has been, regrettably, some deterioration in your constituent's mental state


since he was first seen by the naval psychiatrist"—
I hope that that was not because of his incarceration in those detention quarters—
and it is therefore unlikely that he will ever become a useful member of the Service. In these circumstances … I am approving his discharge as temperamentally unsuitable for a naval career.
If any question of the mental or emotional stability of a Serviceman arises, particularly if he is a young Serviceman who has signed on for a long term at the age of 15 or 16 without realising what he was doing, it is extremely desirable that he should see not only a Service psychiatrist, but an independent civilian psychiatric consultant. I hope that those who represent the Ministry of Defence in this House will be good enough to bear this in mind and follow the excellent example set by my hon. Friend.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Ernle Money: I want to deal briefly with one aspect of court martial procedure not covered by the Bill. That is the situation which arises over costs for a successful defendant. As a young barrister I used to spend quite a lot of time in Germany appearing for Service personnel, officers and other ranks, who had been charged generally with civilian offences under the Air Force or Army Acts. There is nothing sweeter in an advocate's career than the moment at which he can ask for his client to be discharged with costs and then to succeed.
Although in many cases legal aid is available, it is contributory, and certainly in the Air Force and Army in many cases it is highly contributory. However, Judge Advocates have no discretion to award costs to a successful defendant. That falls even harder on senior other ranks or officers who for reasons of income do not fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme at all and in these circumstances have to carry the whole of their defence even when acquitted after a full and fair trial. They are still left heavily out of pocket so that any victory from their point of view must to some extent be a Pyrrhic one. It is a very small slur on what is otherwise an admirable system of justice. It is certainly something which can cause an individual to be punished through his pocket for merely being tried,

which is alien to the British system of law.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: In many respects this Bill is to the Forces what the Industrial Relations Bill is to the industrial worker. It has its penal sanctions which can be applied to Servicemen as they go about their occupations. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) said he was convinced that military law was applied fairly in the Services. I hope and believe that he is correct but we have no means of knowing whether that is a fact because, unlike the industrial worker, the Serviceman is not represented in this House by those who are knowledgeable through current contact and consultation with Servicemen.
It is one of the defects in our debate that we are discussing measures of the utmost importance to these men without the benefit of their views and opinions. I do not take the view of the noble Lord who, in opening the debate, said that these Acts are broadly understood by Servicemen. I very much doubt whether the average Serviceman has even seen the Army Act, the Air Force Act or the Naval Discipline Act. To give an illustration, when I was serving in the Royal Navy—

Lord Balniel: The point I was trying to make was that the Army Act, the Air Force Act and the Naval Discipline Act were long-standing Acts which I said I hoped were understood by Servicemen. I appreciate that they do not follow all the details. I was arguing that it was desirable to keep them separate rather than to have a unified Act which would be longer and more complicated.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I accept that. The noble Lord said "broadly understood", and I accept his definition. I am glad that he agrees with me that the ordinary Serviceman probably does not understand the details of the Act applying to his Service.
I was about to give an illustration of something which occurred to me during my service in the Royal Navy. I had reason to be in dispute with those who held command over me and I exercised my rights under the then King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions to inspect the regulations which applied to


the particular incident over which I was in dispute with my superior officers. I was entitled to see them, but I had to see them in the presence of an officer, who merely turned to the page he thought appropriate to the point I wished to investigate, allowed me to read that page, but not to make an extract from it in writing so that I might have it in mind later. I am sure that such out-of-date procedures have long since passed.
I am still doubtful about how quickly a Serviceman can get access to his particular disciplinary Act. I would like the Minister to give the House an assurance that on each ship or establishment these Acts are readily available for Servicemen to read and study without there being present a superior officer and that the men are able to understand the law applying to their occupations. That is a basic requirement, and I hope that we can have some assurance tonight. I hope, also, that the Under-Secretary will reply to the interesting point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) about the application of Scottish and English law to Clause 75. It is a most pertinent point. The Minister must not slip away from the debate without dealing with it, and I hope that he will not endeavour so to do.
As the Bill will go to a Select Committee, we do not want to deal now with too many detailed points, but I wish to refer, in particular, to Clause 8. In days now gone, it was an offence—I think it was called "dumb insolence"—to stand before one's superior officer and by an expression upon one's face convey to that superior officer that one did not hold him in high regard. That has been abolished, but I am concerned—indeed, to use stronger language, I am somewhat appalled—to find that in Clause 8 there is a proposal to resinsert into the Army Act and the Air Force Act—not the Naval Discipline Act, because we have not been sufficiently progressive to remove the corresponding provision there—the words, "or behaves with contempt to". Thus, we are returning to the days when it was an offence by any facial expression to convey one's opinion of the person before whom one was standing to attention. I believe that this is a retrograde step.
I hope that the Minister will give a clear explanation of what is intended by the expression, "to behave with contempt to a superior officer". I hope that it does not mean that, if a serving soldier, airman or sailor is on a charge or is being addressed by his superior officer, he will be guilty of another offence if he expresses by his eyes the opinion which he may genuinely hold. That point needs to be cleared up, if not today, certainly when the Bill goes to the Select Committee.
I was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) did not deal at greater length with the passing of those fine-sounding Sections and subsections of the Naval Discipline Act which deal with the duty of an officer in command of one of Her Majesty's vessels to bring that vessel into action in the face of the enemy and to pursue those whom it is his duty to pursue. I should like to hear from the Under-Secretary whether the Admiralty Board expressed any opinion or regret at the passing of those traditional sentences in the Naval Discipline Act.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) rightly referred to the passing from the Army Act of the words referring to "officers and gentlemen", and I assume that henceforth all members of the Army will be gentlemen at least by implication. The passing of those words is all very good, and probably the passing of the words in the Naval Discipline Act about the duty of a commanding officer is all very good. But we must be careful that we do not go too far in removing all the traditional customs and usages in our Armed Forces.
I particularly regret the passing of the Navy rum ration. If I might remind my right hon. Friend, the stopping of the naval rum ration, unfortunately, did not bring equality into the Royal Navy. It brought inequality and continuing distinctions between the various sections of the Royal Navy. The rum ration was abolished because it was considered to be incompatible with the need for seamen to operate the complex machinery and systems now used in the Royal Navy, and so it passed from the scene. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) had responsibility in


this matter, and he carries the odium of having taken the decision.
Though the rum ration was abolished for the lower deck, strong alcoholic drink was still available in the wardroom. My right hon. Friend talks about equality in the Forces, but we did not get equality in the Royal Navy when we made it a "dry" lower deck and still left the wardroom "wet". [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not a dry lower deck."] It is dry inasmuch as ratings no longer have spirits. I believe that they are entitled to an extra can of beer. The so-called extension of the privilege of spirits to petty officers and chief petty officers only serves to emphasise the point. By giving that privilege to petty officers, we give a constant reminder to the ordinary seaman on the lower deck of the privilege that he has lost and which is conferred only upon those of superior rank.
I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East in his remarks about a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Forces. It would be a useful step forward if there were an official available to Servicemen who could listen to their genuine fears and complaints about the operation of the various laws and regulations governing their jobs. I go a little further than my right hon. Friend who left the question open. I say that it is no longer an open question. It is essential that we have a commissioner for the Armed Forces to do that job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), in a remarkable and compassionate speech, dealt with some of the problems affecting individuals in detention, and, in passing, he referred to the occasion a short time ago when a number of seamen were charged under the Act and were sentenced to imprisonment for being drunk—I think the charge was conduct to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline, or whatever it may be—[An HON. MEMBER: "Mutiny."]—they were charged with mutiny because they were drunk on board ship. I was horrified to read that, despite the fact that those seamen were sentenced to imprisonment, the officer in command of the ship, who obviously had failed to exercise proper control, discipline and leadership, and who had invited a tramp aboard and entertained him in the wardroom, suffered only a reprimand. The

comparison between the punishments meted out, imprisonment for the seamen who were allowed to conduct themselves in such a disgraceful manner, and a reprimand imposed upon the officers who, by their lack of leadership and control, allowed this situation to develop, is but an illustration of the continuing disparity between the standards which appear to be applied to officers and those applied to other ranks.
I hope that the Select Committee which is to consider the Bill will make visits to the Forces and have an opportunity, at least informally—I recognise all the difficulties of formal meetings—perhaps over cups of tea or glasses of beer, to discuss some of the matters covered by the Bill with ordinary rank-and-file Servicemen. One accepts that one cannot have trade unions in the Forces, but the Select Committee, before recommending acceptance of these proposals to the House, ought to enable itself to discuss these matters informally with serving men so that we may know as a matter of fact rather than theory and belief the real reaction of those who are entrusted with the duty of protecting us and our nation.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) reminded us of the withdrawal of the rum ration by the last Government, and I agree with what he said. It was a somewhat mean and unnecessary act, and I regret that it was ever done.
The hon. Gentleman spoke also about the availability of the Army Act and the other Acts to ordinary soldiers, sailors and airmen at the places where they live and work. In my 22 years of experience in the Services, I found that the Acts were available in the company office, the squadron office or the ship's office for anyone who wished to see them. Most serving men, however, are more interested in the summary justice which is meted out by their commanding officer, and they are more likely to direct their minds to that.
I come now to the Bill itself. Clause 2 relates to conditions of total war, and I have one or two points to raise. On the question of misconduct in action, I am sure that the principle behind the


Clause is right, where it refers in the proposed new Section 24(1) to the offence of surrendering
without lawful excuse … any place or thing to the enemy
or abandoning
any place or thing which it is his duty to defend. …".
It must be right to put those words in the Act, but in certain theatres during the last war one was constantly abandoning places and things as one moved up and down in desert warfare, and it would be difficult to say whether one has a lawful excuse at any one moment.
I have in mind another situation of which I was a victim during the last war and I have been unable to discover from my reading of the Bill how the malefactor in such a case would be caught. This was the case of a "stool-pigeon", a British Serviceman who deserted to the enemy with the intention of assisting them. He passed through the lines in the desert war, in 1941–42, and went over to the Italian side. Thereafter, as British soldiers were captured and became prisoners-of-war, he appeared among them in British Army clothing, impersonating a British officer. He tried to obtain from them information about dispositions and plans, and also whether they had plans for escape.
This man came to me. He appeared to be a British soldier, being dressed as an officer, and I was taken in. After he had left the cell where I was a prisoner-of-war, I had all my clothing taken away, and the various maps, compasses and things which I had hidden were removed from me. This man moved among numerous prisoners of war as they came through, and, in the way I have described, obtained from them information about Allied plans and about their own plans for escape. It was proved afterwards that he was responsible for the capture and death of many of our people concerned in those operations. Yet, having looked through the new provisions, I cannot see how he would be caught.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is it not the proposed new Section 25(1)(d),
having been captured by the enemy, serves with or aids the enemy in the prosecution of hostilities or of measures calculated to influence morale, or in any other manner whatsoever not authorised by international usage"?

Mr. Mather: I have noted that, but the opening words are "having been captured". The man I am referring to went over of his own volition, so I do not think that his case would be covered by that paragraph. However, I understand that he was eventually brought to book under the law prevailing at that time.
I turn next to Clause 6, which specifically provides that looting is against the law. During the last war, however, looting or the collection of booty was pretty prevalent and was winked at by the authorities on a fairly large scale. I remember that a very senior officer with whom I served was once accused of looting a pig. I feel that this phraseology should be looked at again to take account of that sort of situation and what might happen if, by some chance, we had war on that scale again.
I do not feel that the establishment of an ombudsman for the Armed Forces would be a great advantage or be particularly good for military discipline. The redress of grievances works extremely well in the Forces, and I should prefer to leave it to our present methods.

6.56 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I was delayed in attending to a constituency problem.
The matter which I wish to raise is connected with the Bill and it arises from the recommendations made in the Donaldson Report, some of which were recently accepted by the Government. I was disappointed that all the recommendations were not accepted, but I was pleased that at least some were, and I felt that progress had been made in developing an understanding of the situation of young men or boys who, at one point in their lives, are encouraged to join the Forces and then, when they are a year or two older, realise that they have made a mistake. Everyone welcomes the new arrangement under which they will have a right to leave earlier than was possible hitherto, but our acceptance of that principle entails that we consider also the position of those young men who were boy recruits—I have two in my constituency, and one of them has this week, I believe, given himself up—and subsequently deserted because they were


unhappy and could not get their discharge.
In accepting some of the Donaldson recommendations, we recognise that young men at 15, 16 or 17 years of age will not fully appreciate all the consequences of the decision which they take then. I hope that we can go a stage further and, in the same light, consider the position of those who regret the decision which they then took and have deserted. The young man in my constituency to whom I have referred enlisted before he was 16. He is now 21. I am not sure how long he has been a deserter; I was not able to ascertain that.
My plea is that some compassion and understanding should be shown towards these young men. We have, as I say, endorsed the principle that boy recruits should have an opportunity to consider their position and obtain their release after they have served three years, and so on, and I hope that this will be borne in mind when some of these other young men who have given themselves up come forward for judgment. A number of young deserters who are still not able to give themselves up because they fear not only detention but that they will be put back in the Services and will have to serve the rest of their time and lose the period of their desertion are condemned to many years of misery and unhappiness. It will be a waste of their lives.
I know that it is not possible to make a general statement because each case must be dealt with individually, but if we could make it known to boy recruits who have deserted that the same principles will be applied to them as we are to apply to boy recruits after they have served a certain time we would end a great deal of unhappiness and uncertainty for perhaps a small but very important section of young people.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: There is always a danger in defence debates, which I have been taking part in for a number of years, that old battles will be refought. This debate has been no exception. We have had a short, interesting but nevertheless wide-ranging debate. I was interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who returned

to his old battle concerning the rum ration for the Navy. I was glad to hear that he does not now regard that matter as important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) made an interesting speech. I think that it was made on behalf of the Coldstream Guards, because he was chiding the Ministry for having been taken over by the Grenadiers. Far be it from me to intervene in the sniping between various members of the Brigade of Guards. All that I would say for the record is that it was drummed into every recruit to my old regiment, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, that when we were offered the opportunity to become the first battalion of the Welsh Guards in 1916, we turned down the honour because it was felt that it was hardly worth while to become a new regiment dating from 1916 in view of the illustrious victories which the Fusiliers had won from 1753 or thereabouts.
Having been concerned for over two years in discharging, as Minister, across-the-board responsibilities for each of the Services, I very much welcome the major aim of the Bill to bring the Services more into line one with another on the issue of discipline. From my short experience in these matters, I realise the limitations—the different considerations of each Service and the attractions of commonality which must be weighed against any possible deterioration in the effectiveness of each Service. I think that it would be right to say that under my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) we made very great progress in creating a Ministry of Defence compared with the previous loose-knit federal structure. I am sure that this trend will continue.
Like the Minister of State, I had the opportunity, as an across-the-board Minister, to see the problems of each Service in turn. I had the chance, as I am sure the noble Lord has had, of presiding over each of the Service Boards. It was interesting to see how they behaved—and I do not mean that in any offensive way—and their reactions to problems. Not many people have had the opportunity of presiding over each Service Board in turn.
While my responsibilities hardly ever referred to the issue of discipline—I was concerned with equipment rather than


with the problems of men apart from a fairly short period in the summer just before and after the death of Gerry Reynolds, who was highly esteemed by the Services—I remember on one famous occasion presiding over the Navy Board when the system of discipline in the Navy was discussed.
The process of the harmonisation of the Services will go on. We envisaged this in our last White Paper. We proposed the abolition of single Service junior Ministers and instead the appointment of one or more Ministers who would be responsible across the board for the three Services. It is perhaps regrettable that the Government, who were pledged to reduce the size of the Administration, shied when they came to this fence. This was in the face of a report of business men, senior Service officers and senior civil servants who had come to the same conclusion as us. Nevertheless, they merged two posts in the office of Minister of State, as we had envisaged.

Lord Balniel: Far from shying from the issue, we took a positive decision to the effect that it was right and in the interests of the Services that each Service should have a political head to whom it could look. We are absolutely convinced that our action was right and wise.

Mr. Morris: The noble Lord is entitled to his opinion, but the Government shied at our decision to reduce the number of Service Ministers. After a great deal of consideration, they rejected the idea of having one political head for each Ministry and decided on appointing a person with across-the-board responsibilities.

Mr. Ramsden: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Opposition, when in government, said that they would reduce the number of Ministers? They said in the White Paper that they would replace them with others with across-the-board responsibilities, but, to my recollection, they never published any intention about reducing the number of Ministers.

Mr. Morris: This was one of the major claims of the Government when they were in opposition. We made our position clear in our last White Paper on these matters. We said that we would

amalgamate the two offices of Minister of State, as the Government have done, and that instead of having one junior Minister for each Service there would be a reduction in that one Minister or possibly more would have across-the-board responsibilities. One of the Government's claims when they were in opposition was that they would reduce the number of Ministers. When they came to the question of junior Ministers for each Service, they shied at the fence.
The Service Boards cling to their junior Ministers as though they were their fathers in God. They have a certain amount of power in questions of discipline, but they still believe that they have a substantial power, which has been eroded. They know full well, if they look at the matter rationally and objectively, that the powers of decision have been taken from the Service Boards and vest in across-the-board Ministers like the Minister of State and the Secretary of State. But I am sure that in the fullness of time the Service Boards will no longer exist and there will be junior Ministers with across-the-board responsibilities.
A great many senior offices are filled by members of each Service in turn. We on this side of the House are partly responsible for this. The fact that these men, from the Chief of the Defence Staff down, hold the offices in turn is perhaps regrettable. The best man for the job should do it. Although there are many jobs which can be done only by members of a particular Service, I hope that in the fullness of time the best men for the job will be given the job rather than its being a question of the turn of any particular Service.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Services are in the fortunate position of having so many excellent men that the jobs can be rotated with ease?

Mr. Morris: Discussion of that point would take me outside the ambit of the debate. All I would say is that it is a very odd defence of the system to say that there are so many excellent men in the Services that the jobs can be rotated rather than that they should be done by the best men for the job.
I welcome the Bill, as I said earlier. Obviously, when we are in the Select


Committee we shall have to examine in some detail particular Clauses. It is, perhaps, one of the difficulties, as the Minister, I am sure, would concede, of making a Second Reading speech on the Bill that it is full of a large number of very important details. However, the Bill seeks to harmonise the three Services, and this, I am sure, is welcome to the House. I also accept, although I feel we should look at this also, regarding the framework for administering the disciplinary code of each of the Services, that there are different needs for the different Services, and I appreciate very much the needs of the Royal Navy in this respect. Anyone who has had any experience of these matters will, I am sure, accept the need for speedy and effective decisions when one is, perhaps, more remote than are others from the central machine.
To achieve this harmonisation in the codes there has had to be a great deal of give and take by each of the Services. This is commendable to the House. It is not always easy to give up one's existing position in order to arrive at the degree of harmonisation which one sees in the present Measure, but I think that this is in the spirit of the relationship now between the Services.
I would also make the point, which has been made already, that one of the objects of the Bill is to bring military law closer in harmony with the civilian law. This is a sound principle, and it reflects the consideration given to this matter as far back as 1963 by a Select Committee of this House, when it found that members of the Armed Forces should, so far as is consistent with the efficiency of the Services, enjoy the normal rights of a citizen.
This is obviously sound, because a soldier today, more than ever, is part of the society whence he comes: he is not cut off; he behaves, particularly in his off-duty hours, in his social life, very much likes the others in the society from which he has come. Indeed, this is reflected in the changed problems within the Armed Forces, for he is married younger, as he would have been, no doubt, had he remained in the outside world, and as other men in the outside world are nowadays, and this gives rise in turn to, for example, problems of soldiers' accommodation.
Indeed, this problem is seen in the architecture of the Forces today. When I was a young recruit one was kept incarcerated behind high walls for weeks on end before the outside world was allowed to see one in one's brand new uniform—ill-fitting sometimes. Now, in the new camps which have been built, and I refer particularly to one in the Principality, at Crickhowell, the very architecture, the very openness, has been deliberately planned—this was explained to me by a very senior officer in the Principality—for the purpose of showing that soldiers today are not cut off from the rest of society; and that place is very different from the old barracks in which some of the older generation worked. Perhaps not a great deal of thanks is due to the Armed Forces themselves for this development, because the standards and codes of discipline, if they are to be effective in this day and age, obviously must reflect in part, also in substance, the conditions in the outside world.
We have had a number of comments about courts martial, and particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. Courts martial are, of course, limited in their jurisdiction. I would bow to the experience of one hon. Member who has spoken on this subject, but I found from my short experience of these matters, when I was a National Service subaltern, that the courts martial did their job effectively, and general officers were able to grasp details with commendable speed, and generally justice was seen to be done. Since the setting up of the Courts Martial Appeal Court I think this is much more so, in that there is a new avenue of appeal.
I am glad that one of the amendments which are now introduced by the Bill is to give to courts martial powers of awarding consequential sentences for more than one charge. This brings the courts martial, as is the object, into line with our civilian courts.
The Minister of State told the House that, following the discussion in the other place, an Amendment would be brought in to deal with the position of civilians on appeal. Perhaps it is a surprise to some Members of this House that civilians can be dealt with at all by a court martial, but where they are accompanying part of the Regular Forces, either here or overseas, they are subject to military law, and


where such matters arise overseas it is usually in the civilian's interest that these should be tried by a court martial rather than that he should go within the jurisdiction of an overseas country.
It seems rather odd, though, that while there is a right of appeal in civilian courts in this country, both against conviction and against sentence, the only remedy against sentence for a civilian, like that of the soldier, is to make his representations through the usual military channels, whereas an appeal against conviction can be made to the Courts Martial Appeal Tribunal. We shall look forward to the Amendment which will be introduced, according to the assurance of the hon. Gentleman, to remedy this position and to give the civilian the right which he enjoys in the outside world.
I think that one of the other matters which cause concern from time to time is sentencing—that is, the powers and the methods and the policy of the military courts on sentencing. One of the queries in another place was whether or not a court martial should award a sentence of a probationary period. Obviously, this will not arise with a soldier, but it might well be an appropriate remedy in the case of a civilian. Perhaps when the hon. Gentleman winds up we shall be told the position on this, and, indeed, about the form of punishment, which we have in our civilian courts, of suspended sentence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us what is the position, and what is the range of punishments which can be awarded to a civilian. I am sure the House would be interested. Particularly following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), on the whole issue of sentencing, I think it would be valuable for the House, knowing that there is no appeal against sentencing for soldiers, to be told some time what is the policy on sentencing. How does sentencing by courts martial compare with that for like offences in civilian courts? I am sure the House would welcome at some stage, perhaps before we pass the Bill, the Minister's taking the opportunity of presenting a document for the Select Committee, or in some other way enlightening us on sentencing.
As to detention, I have no personal experience of having been detained, fortunately, but I would think that detention

could be compared with imprisonment. That, obviously, must be very expensive in terms of manpower. One would like to know how this sentence compares with similar punishment in civilian life.
I was concerned with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking about the naval detention centre. He commended my hon. Friend for the improvements which have taken place, and I am advised by him that quite extensive improvements have taken place in the conditions at the detention centre, but I would ask a question, and I can ask it not having been concerned, as I said earlier, with issues of discipline. Since we are harmonising more and more the three Services and having a common code for offences and punishments, is it not right, perhaps, to look further into the issue raised by my hon. Friend when he was a Minister? If I recall aright, the suggestion was the unifying of places of punishments. The premises at Portsmouth are exceedingly antiquated. Following the study, it might be proper to move the place of punishment of those who have been sentenced by the Navy to Colchester where those who have been sentenced by the other Services are accommodated. I know that this suggestion commended itself to my hon. and right hon. Friends when they considered it at first blush. Since we are seeing a great deal of harmonisation, we should also harmonise this so as to save a great deal of expense and achieve a commonality of conditions for people in the Services who have to serve sentences. A great deal of fresh air could be let into the matter in this way, and perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will say a little about this later.
May I thank the Minister for the fair and detailed way in which he dealt with the issue of the death penalty. I am sure that the House will also wish to commend him. The death penalty is now being re-enacted for a range of military offences. As one committed to the abolition of the death penalty for murder, I have examined with some care the new proposals. I immediately concede, as did my right hon. Friend, that Clause 7 is a great step forward. The present position of mutiny with violence or threat of violence being a capital offence will no longer continue, and retention of the death penalty will be limited to an optional sentence for Service offences which


directly or indirectly assist the enemy. I presume this would arise usually in time of war, and perhaps this can be confirmed. Where there is a great deal of killing sanctioned by the State going on, it would be odd to take exception to the ultimate sanction being available for somebody who has put himself in the position of being the tool of the enemy. It is a matter for individual conscience, but very different considerations arise as to the use of the death penalty where a person endangers the lives of his comrades.
Clause 56 deals with the position of the deserter. Before I went to the Ministry of Defence my right hon. Friends were much concerned about the unfortunate incident where a person brought before the magistrates' court as a deserter was discharged, and was then arrested under military law by the military authorities but was not brought again before the magistrates' court. Administrative steps were taken by my right hon. Friends soon after that event to ensure that there should not be a repetition of this procedure, and I do not think there has been a repetition of it. I am sure the House will welcome the putting into legislation of the administrative steps taken by the Government's predecessors to avoid a repetition of that incident.
The right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), who has a great deal of experience in dealing with defence generally—I have crossed swords with him metaphorically during the last nine years on defence matters—raised the issue of low flying. This is a matter which causes a great deal of concern in many parts of the country. In this day when we pay so much lip service—and I hope more than lip service—to the environment, some parts of the country do not realise what the problem is, but many areas are acutely affected by low flying. It was the policy of the Ministry of Defence—I am sure it still is, but perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will give this assurance once again—to limit as much as possible in time and intensity the level of flying on these necessary operations.
This matter has been pressed upon Ministers from time to time, and my good colleague in the other place who was responsible for the Air Force said that he probably had more letters from Members

of Parliament on this issue than on any other. In many instances this training cannot take place over the sea, which is a solution which is pressed upon us from time to time. I am sure that those who are affected will welcome the proposal to strengthen the punishment for illegal low flying and, given the sophisticated aircraft that are now being flown, to recognise that responsibility should lie with the commander of the aircraft. I was not in sympathy with the deliberations in another place. Here we are dealing with highly sophisticated aeroplanes where the power of decision lies with the commander of the aircraft, and that is where the responsibility should lie. I particularly commend this part of the Bill.
This is perhaps only of very small cheer to those who are affected by low flying, and I ask the Minister responsible to ensure that he presses this matter from time to time. From my Ministerial experience of five and a half years, I have found that the only way to ensure that one's interests are kept alive is to keep the pot boiling. I hope that the Minister will continue to ask, time after time, whether the Air Force is keeping to its assurances to limit the instances of low flying to as few as possible. The proposal in the Bill will be a small assurance to those who are directly affected.
I welcome the Bill in that it seeks to harmonise discipline and administration in the three Services. Secondly, it brings military law more closely in line with civilian law. Thirdly, it recognises the need to mitigate where possible the impact of military activities on civilian life. I join in the thanks that have been accorded to those who have been working on the Bill for two years, if not more. Subject to the necessary scrutiny in detail which must take place in the Select Committee, I add my voice to commend the Bill as yet another step in the harmonisation and bringing together of the three Services.

7.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kirk): Both the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) and the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) commented that this was not an easy Bill on which to have a normal Second Reading debate. This is true. It is very


much an omnibus Bill. It is possible—indeed, it has been shown this afternoon to be possible—to discuss almost any matter relating to the Armed Forces without going out of order and, as a result, we have had a wide-ranging debate. I think that everyone will agree that it has been a good debate and, if there has been a central theme, it has been the great affection and pride which we in this House have for the three Armed Services of this country, and our determination through this Bill and in other ways to support them to the fullest possible extent.
What criticisms there have been of the Services have been designed to improve them rather than to run them down. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Con-cannon) was slightly critical of the Services but even more worried about the Ministry of Defence, which he seemed to think had succumbed to a coup d'état of the Brigade of Guards and what he would regard as one of the more junior regiments of that Brigade. I can assure him that, although I am heavily outnumbered, there is a small patch of dark blue still in the Ministry of Defence, and we hold our own very well.
The right hon. Member for Aberavon queried the Government's decision on taking office last June to keep the three Service Boards separate. This is not a matter specifically referred to in the Bill, but the fact that discipline ultimately is exercised by the Boards brings this matter within the confines of the Bill. It will be recalled that there was a proposal put forward by the previous Administration in their last White Paper to abolish the single-Service Ministers and thereby no doubt eventually to abolish the three Service Boards. This was not a question of our shying away from this matter. It was a matter of judgment.
In our judgment, although the greatest measure of harmonisation is desirable between the three Services, there are separate and distinct manifestations within the Services which are best represented by separate Boards and by separate Ministers. I believe that this has been welcomed widely within the Services. It certainly makes the conduct of defence matters in this House a great deal easier, as hon. Members know who come to us with their problems. Although the abolition of one of the offices of Minister of

State has placed a considerable burden on my noble Friend, I can assure the House that the three of us who act for the three Services also occasionally mix in each other's responsibilities and there is a good deal of tri-Service co-operation always within the Ministry and it seems to work well.
If I may turn to the provisions of the Bill, I feel that I should refer once again to the constitutional propriety of bringing forward the Bill in another place. My noble Friend made it plain that since the change in form that took place in 1955, there is no statutory or constitutional reason for the Bill not to be brought forward in another place and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said—and this matter was also referred to by the hon. Member for Mansfield—there were reasons of convenience as between the two Houses why that should be.
There is one other reason which is worth mentioning. This is the fourth quinquennial review and it means that the Select Committee will have the advantage, if somewhat second-hand, of opinions expressed in another place about this Bill.
The Bill will need to be gone into in detail as this Second Reading debate clearly has shown. A number of points have been raised which I will try to answer. After this Bill has gone to a Select Committee, it will subsequently go into Committee of the whole House. Therefore, at the end of the day nobody will be able to say that we have not done our homework. Indeed, it will probably be discussed more than any other major Bill this Session.
One of the major points in the Bill is the codification of offences under the three Acts, and in consequence the placing of the Naval Discipline Act on a quinquennial basis like the other two. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate referred to the rather privileged position which the Navy appears to occupy in the House as opposed to the other Services. I am in the unique position of being the only person here who has been politically associated with two Services, first of all with the Army in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and now with the Navy. I have certainly noticed the warmth and affection I now get from the Navy which


I never got when I was Under-Secretary of State for War. Nevertheless, we feel it right that we should not trade on this privileged position, and the Navy and the Admiralty Board itself welcome the fact that they, too, will come up for scrutiny every five years. They will then have an opportunity to put their views to a Select Committee every five years, an advantage which hitherto has been denied to them.
The Bill has been generally welcomed in the House. A number of detailed points have been raised, and I shall try to answer them as best I can, though it will be necessary to go into matters in much more detail when the matter is before a Select Committee.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) raised the question of the abolition of the rum ration. I do not know whether he wanted a further statement from me. This was a decision taken by the previous Administration. I re-examined the matter on taking office and came to the conclusion that they were absolutely right, and I am certain the Navy has benefited from it. Although we have allowed petty officers' messes to sell spirits, speaking as a veteran of six months or more who has consumed more pints of beer in petty officers' messes than I care to remember, I assure the hon. Gentleman that widespread drunkenness has not taken place in those messes. Indeed, the situation is settling down very happily indeed.
The question of low flying was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and also by the right hon. Member for Aberavon. I can give the assurance that Ministers in this Administration are just as concerned as was the previous Administration over the matter of low flying. I personally have investigated two cases and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for the Air Force has done the same. This is one of the most difficult problems facing the Ministry of Defence at the moment, and as a Member of Parliament whose constituency contains Stansted I have this matter very much in mind.
The important question raised by a number of hon. Members related to the death penalty, which was a matter originally raised in the speech of my noble Friend fully and generously and

which the House appreciated. I would point out that both my noble Friend and myself voted for the abolition of the death penalty, as did my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for the Army. We were therefore put, not perhaps in a dilemma, but certainly in an earnest position when we came to examine this Bill in draft over this question. We all three came to the conclusion that there was no alternative but the maintenance of the death penalty for certain offences. It applies only to offences committed with intent to assist the enemy, offences which most people would agree are very close to treason, and therefore would be liable under civil law as it at present stands; or the one case of the offence of mutiny with violence when committed in a warlike or active service situation.
I would point out to the right hon. Member for Aberavon that it is unlikely that these provisions will ever be used. It is almost impossible that they would have to be used in peace time, but we feel that the provision should be there. I feel as a result of today's debate that the House accepts this view as reasonable, regrettable though it may be to many people, including myself.
I come now to a matter in which I have taken a close personal interest, and that is the question of the Royal Naval Detention Quarters at Portsmouth. The right hon. Member for Aberavon referred to the possibility of unification of various corrective training centres which the Services maintain. We are still considering this matter, but there are problems. One of the major problems, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) will recall, is that the Navy is different in two respects, in that conditions in certain of Her Majesty's ships are not all that comfortable and therefore conditions in naval detention quarters cannot be all that comfortable either.
Secondly, and rather more seriously, the Navy does not have, as have the other two Services, guard rooms in which to keep short-term offenders for up to 28 days under fairly minimal conditions. For that reason the Royal Naval Detention Quarters serve a dual purpose in a way that the military corrective training establishment at Colchester does not. This, coupled with their age, which is considerable, leads us into difficulties.
I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sutton for the immense improvements in R.N.D.Q. as I saw for myself not so long ago. These improvements included the introduction of lectures, television, controlled discussion between instructors and detainees; an improvement in food, with an increase to 4,200 calories; the introduction of bunks instead of plank beds; extension of the library, and so on. All these things have been done within the constraining limits of this institution.
We are going further now with structural improvements as well—again planned by the hon. Gentleman—work on new washing and toilet facilities, a new sick bay, work on a dining hall, modernisation of the galley and so on, and we hope to take over a plot of adjacent land which will enable us to provide extra space for physical recreation.
All this does not alter the fact that there are problems in dealing with naval ratings who have committed offences, some quite serious offences, in trying to achieve the right balance in conditions in the naval detention quarters, having regard to the conditions in which they serve at sea. Our object is to rehabilitate them for continued service. Those who are to be discharged from the Royal Navy go to Colchester from the beginning and not to Portsmouth. It is right that, in these circumstances, the corrective training should be undertaken in a naval environment and by naval personnel, as they are intended to continue serving there.
However, I have been worried about the position of those serving long sentences in Portsmouth. If one takes the analogy of the guard room, it is clear that, whereas guard room conditions may be all right for reasonably short periods, they are not all right for long periods. I have therefore decided to limit the period in R.N.D.Q. to that which is necessary to achieve the rehabilitation. Any further period of detention will be served at Colchester and they will be moved there. I hope to be able to embark on this on 1st February this year.

Mr. Driberg: Could the hon. Gentleman say something about the tasks?

Mr. Kirk: Yes, the tasks have now been reduced. They now amount to no

more than two hours a week. This was another reform by the previous Administration. It is part of the difficulty in confined surroundings with little to do, but we are trying to improve that with increased space and so on. But the tasks will remain, all the same: we do need the mats in the Royal Navy.
The right hon. Member for Dundee, East raised the question of "scandalous conduct", and asked whether it was still necessary to provide for this offence in this Bill. This offence has been a feature of Service disciplinary Acts for a long time. We considered it again very carefully when reviewing the systems, and we have concluded that it is essential if the standards required of an officer are to be maintained. Every profession has its own system of ethical standards—examples are medicine and the law—which has to be accepted by members and which goes beyond the requirements of the ordinary law.
Cases arise—not very often, I am glad to say—when an officer cannot match up to the standard of this profession. In some cases, it is enough to allow the person concerned to leave quietly, but, in a few cases, what has happened is too serious to follow this course and a more formal process is essential, which may even be fairer to the individual on occasion, since it provides at least the chance to have his case heard.
This provision enables the Service to deal with the case of an officer who has not necessarily committed a criminal offence and may not even have conducted himself in a way "to the prejudice", but who nevertheless is unsuitable for further service in the Armed Forces. We believe that this provision is right.
A number of hon. Members, including both Front Bench speakers, opposite and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford asked about the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner being applied to the Forces. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) were against this proposal. We are all agreed, I think, that so far as the Bill concerns the proceedings in military courts, it would be wholly inappropriate and totally wrong for the Parliamentary Commissioner to be given powers.
As to the other aspects of the question, however, I am in a slight difficulty. The right hon. Member for Dundee, East recalled the Report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration earlier this year on the question of areas excluded from his investigations. That Report, which raised very important issues of policy, so far as the Government were concerned, is still under consideration, and a statement will be made in due course. Until it is made, there is not much that I can say about it, except that this matter is definitely under review in the general review of the Parliamentary Commissioner's activities.

Mr. John Morris: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman cannot answer this question now, but I should be glad if he could give an answer later. Will this matter come within the cognisance of the Select Committee—whether or not the Parliamentary Commissioner's powers should apply?

Mr. Kirk: I do not think that one can guarantee it. The Select Committee is to examine the Bill. To what extent it can examine something which is not in the Bill and which, for the reason that I have given, cannot be in the Bill, it is difficult to say. That is largely a matter for the Committee itself to decide.
The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) mentioned Clause 28, dealing with the spreading of information damaging to morale. With respect, this is not a new provision. It merely repeats the present Section 27 of the Army and Air Force Acts, and the only purpose of putting it in here is so that we can write it into the Naval Discipline Act. This is part of the process of unification and not a new and sudden departure—

Mr. Driberg: But that does not justify it, with respect.

Mr. Kirk: That is true, but I was answering the hon. Gentleman's point that we were making a new and sudden departure. The question of justification is a matter for the Select Committee and then the Committee of the whole House. I should have thought that there was a case for it—it has proved so in the past—but that is a matter for the Select Committee to decide.
The hon. Member for Barking and a number of other hon. Members mentioned

some of the matters arising out of the recent Report of the Donaldson Committee. I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Government had not done much about it. His hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Joan Lestor) qualified that by saying that we should have gone a good deal further.
In fact, of the many recommendations of the Donaldson Committee, we accepted all but two. One of them, we thought, was wholly impracticable—the suggestion that many things borne on the Defence Vote should be borne on the Vote of the Department of Education and Science. That is something which I am all for, but it would be difficult to achieve. The other was one which created, we thought, an unfair discrimination between different types of boy soldier—apprentices and others. Otherwise, we accepted the Report as it stood, and we intend to apply it. Therefore, the problem would not have been made any easier—particularly the problem to which the hon. Lady referred—if we had accepted the two recommendations which we did not accept.
The essential recommendation of the Donaldson Committee which should ease the hon. Lady's problem—we have corresponded on a number of these cases—is the one which urged the Navy in particular to shorten the period in which discharge by purchase was allowed. The Navy has undertaken to do this. It will fall into line with the other Services by 1977. That is a longish period, but conditions of naval recruitment require that we take time to adapt it. That, and that alone, will solve the problem of someone who is already in the Service, although I have given instructions that the system of a four-year engagement which has been applied to certain of the over-18s entering the Service in certain sections of the Navy shall now be applied roughly throughout the Service. That may help those entering the Service at that time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate asked whether the Report itself required legislation. Clause 64 of the Bill provides for the making of regulations which can be used to reflect any changes implicit in the Report. I am advised that nothing further is necessary to ensure that that Report is carried out to the full.
Another question was whether we should not try to get a common code of punishment for officers and men. This is a difficult one. To give one example, how would it be possible for a private soldier to be reduced in rank? He could not go any lower than he was at the time, so that punishment is not available for a very large number of soldiers. Furthermore, the whole point of military detention, if not accompanied by discharge from the Service, is to re-educate, to get the man back into the Service and into a Service frame of mind again. It would be very difficult for an officer who had been sentenced to detention to go back and command the respect that he should command as an officer.
So there are considerable problems here, which I am afraid it is almost impossible to resolve. Although we cannot provide in the Bill the same punishments for officers and other ranks, the new provisions for punishment in the Bill contain fewer differences. For instance, we have got rid of cashiering, something which was only for officers. We replaced it in the Army and Air Force Acts by dismissal and disgrace, and this applies to any Serviceman. However, to have complete unification for officers and other ranks would, I suggest, be almost impossible.

Dr. David Owen: Detention is almost exclusively an other ranks punishment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) mentioned his feeling about detention being almost synonymous with a prison sentence. I believe that there is a feeling in the House generally that detention is used rather too frequently as a form of punishment in the Services and that a review of this form of punishment is necessary in that it is used rather more than it perhaps should be in the changed climate of opinion in Britain with regard to penal law.

Mr. Kirk: It is difficult to comment specifically on this subject. One would need to make a wide survey of precisely how often this form of punishment was used. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is rather more an other ranks punishment; this is because officers, if they are imprisoned, do not return to the Services, mainly, of course, because they cannot. Other ranks, on the other

hand, can return. This is the major point of difference and the reason why there appears to be discrimination here, but it is rather more in the form than in the substance.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate spoke of the difficulty of applying, as well as fully comprehending, the complications of Service law. I am advised that the Services do not find this a tremendous problem. All officers are given some training in Service law and there are legal services available to give advice and instruction if necessary. Although some of the manuals may be complicated, they are designed to instruct.
As for legal problems generally, a knotty legal problem was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) on a difficult point of Scottish law which I was ordered to answer by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford. I will, therefore, answer it.
I am not, as it happens, either a Scotsman or a lawyer. Drawing heavily, therefore, on the advice I have, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Clause in question seeks to deal only with admissibility and not with the weight of evidence. It is necessary only because in Scotland the formula to establish admissibility exists in relation to the phrase "shall be sufficient evidence"in England it is "shall be evidence". The Clause does not confer any higher degree of proof than that existing in England. I hope that that is comprehensible to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is, to a certain extent only, comprehensible to me; and if he requires further information I will gladly consult the Lord Advocate.
I come to the question of the Iveston mutiny. I do not think that there is any doubt that it was a case of mutiny. Indeed, this appears to have been accepted by the men, because they did not appeal against conviction but against sentence. In those circumstances, I do not think the authorities had any choice but to proceed in the way they did. Nor do I think there was any great discrepancy between the way in which the men were treated and the way in which the officers were dealt with. The officers had not indulged in mutiny though they may have been negligent. They were, therefore, reprimanded for carrying out their duties in a negligent way, but they were


not found guilty of an offence other than that and I do not see how they could have been treated in any other way.
The hon. Member for Mansfield asked why a Serviceman is dismissed if he is sent to prison. I suggest that one can assume that if a Serviceman is sent to prison he has committed a quite serious crime. That being so, he is not the sort of man we want in the Services. The standard required in the Services nowadays is high. It has been the practice for a number of years not to take back a Serviceman if he has been sentenced in the civil courts to serve a prison sentence. The Clause to which the hon. Member for Mansfield referred merely writes into the law what in fact has been the practice for a considerable time.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford raised the question of dumb insolence, something of which he will never be accused. This is not a question of putting the clock back but of unification. There are various forms of contemptuous behaviour which should be guarded against and it was felt right to bring the other Acts into line with the Naval Act. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, he can pursue the matter further with the Select Committee or in Committee of the whole House. The facts on this issue are readily available for study by Servicemen. Indeed, there is an obligation in this matter to ensure that men under one's command are acquainted with the facts. For example, the Articles of War must be displayed in all Her Majesty's ships.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) referred to the award of costs. I regret that my hon. Friend is not in his place to hear me tell him that he certainly has a point. It is a matter that should be looked into by the Select Committee, and I hope that it will be. At present it is a matter for discretion: costs can be awarded to a successful appellant in a courts martial appeal court but not in the lower court.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher raised the question of looting and desertion to aid the enemy. I believe that the case he cited would be caught under the treason or treachery Acts. I cannot believe that a Serviceman who crosses over to the enemy in time of war and

while in uniform remains to assist the enemy would not be caught under one of those Measures.
As for looting, that has been an offence since the last war. The Bill widens its scope to include operations in aid of the civil power, which we are advised is a point not covered by the existing Acts. This is necessary in view of the amount of time which the Services now provide in aiding the civil power.
I have done my best to cover most of the points that have been raised. My noble Friend pointed out, as I did at the outset, that there will be opportunities to raise these and other points in the Select Committee and during the deliberations in Committee of the whole House.
In view of the general welcome which the Bill has received, I trust that it will now be given a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee.—[Mr. Monro.]

Orders of the Day — OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

PROVISION OF SECURITY AS CONDITION OF REGISTRATION

The Board of Trade may require as a condition of the registration of a vessel under the Merchant Shipping Acts that the person seeking registration shall deposit with the Board of Trade such sum as they may specify by way of security for the payment of any fine or for any damages awarded in civil proceedings arising from any discharge of oil which constitutes an offence under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955, the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1963 or this Act.—[Mr. Booth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Clause is to ensure that the Board of Trade can require, as a condition of the registration of a vessel in the United Kingdom, the provision of


security for any fine or damages awarded in civil proceedings arising from a discharge of oil in navigable waters which constitutes an offence under the 1955 Act, the 1963 Act or this Measure.
As, under the Bill, Britain is to be responsible for all offences committed by U.K. registered ships outside our territorial waters as well as for offences committed by the discharge of oil within them, I trust that the House will agree that if there is to be the provision of such security it is appropriate that it should be made operable from the time at which the ship is registered.
However, the main bone of contention which the House must consider at this stage is whether this form of security is necessary. I believe it to be necessary in part because of the nature of the shipping industry. It is an industry the major assets of which are mobile. Nobody can guarantee that any of the major assets of a shipping company will be in United Kingdom ports at any time when there is an action as the result of an offence. This of itself constitutes a need for special guarantees to operate in respect of damages or fines for breaches of legislation in respect of oil in navigable waters.
8.0 p.m.
Some of us contended in committee, that it was desirable to have some provision whereby a ship could be held in a United Kingdom port if it was suspected of having committed an offence. The Minister very properly, as I thought, argued that it would be wrong to take this power because by holding the ship and keeping it off the high seas one was depriving its owners of the ability to earn a certain amount of money, and perhaps causing them further charges without having established that they were guilty of the offence, and, if subsequently found to be not guilty, they would still have been penalised. That is a powerful argument against taking power to hold a vessel in order that one has some security against the payment of fine or damages if those responsible are found to be guilty, but it does not in any way solve the problem of guaranteeing that there is a security. We are therefore now forced to consider the provision of a security from the time of registration of the vessel.
We must also consider the problem of the need for security in relation to the

very difficult nature of legal proceedings in respect of the discharge of oil in navigable waters. In this instance one has to secure damages from a unit operating in a multi-national industry. It is possible for a vessel to be owned by a subsidiary company in one country and, for tax purposes, leased to the parent company, which is in a second country. The vessel can be registered in a third country, but have a crew comprised entirely of nationals of a fourth country, and can be chartered by a company in a fifth country. This may seem to be stretching the laws of probability rather far, but it is not. In fact, complicated multi-national ownerships and arrangements for the operations of tankers even to the degree I have just described are comparatively common.
I therefore contend that if in addition to the legal complications deriving from this multi-national type of operation, there is doubt whether any fines imposed or damages awarded can be obtained, there will be a very considerable disincentive to commence a legal action. We must ensure that there is no such disincentive, but that there can be effective legal action against those who dump oil at sea. It has, in part, to be effective to deter others, but it is also certainly necessary in view of the known saving in cost which can be obtained by flouting the provisions of this legislation.
I believe that Britain is one of the first countries to seek to legislate the provisions of the international convention in respect of oil discharged as a result of bad operating procedures. We are therefore designing the legal means whereby we may safeguard against pollution by those operating procedures. In carrying through the Bill, therefore, we may be creating a pattern for international legislation, and in view of this we must seek to guarantee its absolute effectiveness. If we fail to do this, we shall fail not only those whom we represent by virtue of our membership of the House but a worldwide community whose crucial marine environment is at stake.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): The new Clause would require persons who seek to register a ship in the United Kingdom to deposit a sum of money to be specified by my Department, as


security for the payment of any fine imposed or any civil damages awarded as a result of an offence under the Measure.
In the first place, the House should understand that the Clause could apply only to persons seeking to register ships in the United Kingdom, and would thus discriminate unfairly against British shipowners acquiring new ships or buying existing ships which had not previously been registered in this country. Since most owners of United Kingdom registered ships are resident or have assets in this country, the problem of enforcing the payment of fines or damages, if it were a problem, would be far less difficult in respect of those ships than of ships registered in foreign countries.
But it is not a problem. Although there may frequently be difficulty in securing sufficient evidence to prosecute a master or owner of a ship which has caused pollution or to bring a civil action for damages, we know of no instance in which, once a fine has been imposed or damages have been awarded, difficulty has been experienced in securing payment. Hon. Members are no doubt aware that Section 13(1) of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955, gives the courts power to enforce payment of fines imposed for offences under that Act by seizing and selling the offending vessel, its tackle, furniture and apparel.
Further, I remind the House that we shall shortly be bringing forward legislation to enable us to give effect to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, drawn up in 1969. This will oblige ships carrying oil cargoes to and from our ports to be satisfactorily insured against their potential liability for oil pollution damage, and to carry evidence that they are so insured. In the meantime, hon. Members will be aware that some 80 per cent. of the world's tanker tonnage has banded together in a voluntary agreement known as the Tanker Owners' Voluntary Agreement concerning Liability for Oil Pollution—"TOVALOP", as I understand it rather more easily—which ensures that compensation is available for oil pollution damage caused by the negligence of a participating tanker.
In short, the Clause is discriminatory and in my judgment unnecessary, and I must invite the House to reject it.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I noticed that my hon. Friend used the word "negligence". What happens if the pollution is due to the deliberate act of the master of a vessel rather than to oversight or negligence?

Mr. Grant: If my hon. Friend is referring to a civil suit by a party which has suffered damage, I am advised that this provision will be just as applicable, and that the party's rights will exist just as much if the pollution is caused by a deliberate as by a negligent act.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 2

FREE PROVISION OF FACILITIES FOR OIL WASTE DISCHARGE

In subsection (1) of section 8 of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1955 there shall be added at the end thereof, 'and every harbour authority shall provide such facilities free of charge at such berth', and subsection (3) of that section is hereby repealed.—[Mr. Booth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause would require all British harbour authorities to provide facilities for the discharge of oily water and waste oil at every one of their berths. The aim of the Clause is to enable ships' engineers to discharge waste oil whenever a ship is berthed for loading or for unloading or for any other purpose alongside a berth in a British harbour.
There are a number of means whereby this can be done. There can be a piping system within the harbour which couples to each berth. There can be tanks alongside each berth. The point of the Clause in requiring such facilities to be at every berth is a recognition of the fact that it is a very expensive operation to shift a vessel which has been alongside one berth, say, for the purpose of loading, to another berth for the purpose of discharging oily waste into facilities provided alongside that berth. Apart from the generally rising costs of docks and harbour dues, there is the very high operating cost of vessels, the necessity of catching limited tides, and so on. Therefore, an assential feature of the Clause is that it requires the facilities to be placed at every berth.
The other feature of the Clause which will be unique in British law is that it would require the provision of facilities to be free of charge. The reason for this is that we should within our law enshrine the idea that there should be no option about using the facilities. The idea of being able to pay a charge and use the facility or not pay a charge and not use it carries with it an implication that one may or may not require to use the facilities. In light of the problems of oil pollution in navigable waters, it should be an accepted practice that a ship coming alongside for the purpose of loading or unloading will at the same time want to discharge some waste oil. Whether it be waste oil from washing an oil fuel-ballast tank or waste oil which has been accumulated from the lubricating system or oily bilge water is not important. The concept should be that ships coming alongside for any purpose should take that occasion to discharge waste oil.
In this connection I quote briefly from a paper given at the Rome Conference on Oil Pollution by the Chairman of the Nordic Union for the Prevention of Oil Pollution of the Sea, a body which has done some excellent work in this field:
…one of the strongest inducements to mariners to dump oily residues unlawfully into the sea is known to be their fear of incurring the displeasure of their owners if they lose time or involve their ships in expense by using facilities in port …".
These words used by a man who is an absolute authority on the subject make it perfectly clear that it is generally held to be the case that a skipper would incur his owner's displeasure if he involved him in the expense of using facilities or if he took up any time in port to discharge waste oil. This was a statement of the general position. I do not doubt that there are some enlightened owners and some highly principled skippers who, irrespective of this general consideration, meticulously on coming into port take the opportunity, even if it means re-berthing vessels or holding the ship for another tide, to get rid of their oily waste, but I question whether this is the general position and I put it to the House in all seriousness that a very large amount of oil is dumped into the sea because of the cost and time involved in getting rid of that waste oil into proper facilities ashore.
8.15 p.m.
There are two types of oil waste discharge with which we are now principally concerned. There is the oily waste that comes about as the result of the washing of the tanks of large tankers. The adoption by the best tanker companies of the "load on top" method has reduced to a very considerable extent pollution from this source.
The other category is the waste that accumulates from using the oily waste separator processes on board ship, whether they be the settling out type of separator or the centrifugal type of separator. These processes result inevitably in a number of ships, particularly British and Swedish ships which are required by law to have the separators for certain purposes anyway, coming into port with a considerable amount of waste oil.
In addition, I think that we must envisage the necessity in a certain number of tanker cleaning processes for additional facilities for putting waste oil ashore. The first reason for this is that, even using the "load on top" method, the amount of settling out which can take place and, therefore, the percentage of water from the tank which can safely be discharged at sea without contamination depends to a considerable degree on the sea conditions when the vessel is coming towards the port.
If the vessel has had a rough passage all the way from its last port of discharge to the port where it is to pick up and has washed during that period, the continuous motion of the ship will reduce the amount of settling out which can take place in the vessel and will, therefore, reduce the percentage of water which can be discharged without causing any contamination. Therefore, if at the end of a rough voyage a ship comes in with 6 inches or 10 inches of water in her tanks which is still heavily contaminated, the ship's operators must decide whether they are to discharge that or accept as the penalty for properly using the "load on top" method that they must forfeit that amount of carrying volume in their ship on the next voyage.
For this reason, we must ensure that even when comparatively large tankers come alongside there are facilities for discharging a large quantity of what is the


oil-contaminated water of a washing process rather than the water-contaminated oil of the separator process.
The second reason is that I believe that it is right to a certain extent in this form of legislation to anticipate technological improvement in the oil/water separator technology; that is, although tanker companies will not at this stage admit that they can, without involving themselves in expense which is repugnant to themselves, put all of their discharge overboard through an oil/water separator process, the time is not far distant when it will be economically viable to put all oily water discharge overboard, where there is any marginal doubt as to oil content, through the oil/water separator process. For this reason, it will soon be necessary to have these additional facilities even where they are not immediately necessary at present.
If this type of operation were done on a large scale by port authorities, it might be run even at a profit rather than its being an expensive operation. Where there can be in stable shore conditions a settling-out tank, the large volume gained from having these settling-out facilities in port might be a source of income to a port. However, whether or not the provision of such a facility is a source of income to the port is not our major consideration on the Clause. Our major consideration must be that we should not let this legislation go through the House while it can still be said that there is a considerable degree of obligation on a skipper to get rid of oil at sea rather than use such facilities because of cost or inconvenience.
Therefore, I strongly urge the Minister to accept the Clause, to ensure that at least the United Kingdom will be able to say to the other maritime nations, "We are not only imposing fines on people whom we catch putting oil into the sea, but we are making it as easy and convenient as possible for any ship coming into a British port to discharge waste oil into facilities which are there for that purpose while the ship is carrying out other normal operations which require it to be at the berth".

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am concerned about one aspect of the Clause, though I have a great deal of sympathy with the case which the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness

(Mr. Booth) has just made. While he was speaking I looked up the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955. The hon. Gentleman's case is very cogent, and the Government should give further consideration to it.
Unfortunately, in Section 22 of the Act the definition of oil extends much further than we would wish. It says:
'oil' means oil of any description and includes spirit produced from oil of any description, and also includes coal tar".
I need go no further, because my point concerns spirit. There are a number of tiny ports in the United Kingdom which do not receive by tanker oil in the sense that the hon. Gentleman and I mean it but which receive petroleum spirit, which does not have residues of the kind referred to. It would help to achieve the aim which the hon. Gentleman has in mind if "oil", for the purpose of the Clause, were redefined to mean what we both think of as oil, excluding petroleum spirit and aviation spirit, where such problems do not arise.
Perhaps I may speak parochially for a moment. Quite a lot of petrol, and possibly paraffin, comes up the Exeter Canal by tanker, with the advantage of reducing congestion on the roads. A requirement to provide facilities for heavy oil, which never arrives in that way, would be onerous and is not what either the hon. Gentleman or I intend.
If my hon. Friend could undertake that in another place further consideration will be given to the Clause, with a view to restricting it to heavy oils and excluding petroleum spirit, I think we shall achieve our objective without imposing an unreasonable burden where it would obviously be inapplicable but for the definition Section of the 1955 Act.

Mr. Anthony Grant: The Clause would abolish the right of harbour authorities to make reasonable charges for oil reception facilities provided by them or on their behalf in pursuance of Section 8 of the 1955 Act, and it would require such facilities to be provided free of charge. I never believe in relying on purely drafting points, but I should point out that the words
at such berth
are not understood, since no "berth" is referred to in the Clause or in Section 8 of the 1955 Act.
The proposal has certain attractions. Its intention is to make sure that no obstacle is put in the way of the use of shore reception facilities for the disposal of oily wastes when the alternative is disposing of them into the sea. I entirely sympathise with the objective of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), and it is something which my Department has very much in mind.
However, in considering whether proper use is made of shore reception facilities we must make a distinction between the position as it is now and as it will be when the new restrictions provided for by the Bill come into force. At present the two classes of vessel which have most need to use shore facilities are tankers and vessels about to undergo repair. These are not relevant in the context of the new Clause, because the responsibility for providing facilities for them rests with the oil terminal operators and the repair yards respectively. It is not laid upon harbour authorities by Section 8 of the 1955 Act.
That means that we are concerned here with dry cargo ships alone, therefore. In their case, those which use their bunker fuel tanks for water ballast are already required to be fitted with oil/water separators. Many others fix separators voluntarily. I am advised that the normal practice of such ships is to return the oil which is recovered by the separator to the bunkers, so that for this purpose there is no need to use shore reception facilities at all.
As regards oily water from engine-room bilges, the Convention at present provides a specific exception where the oil is only lubricating oil, so that it is not illegal to discharge such an oily mixture outside territorial waters. This is not a big exception in theory, but it affords an excuse for discharges of bilges containing other oils, and it is very difficult for us to prove an offence. Against that background it is perhaps not surprising that not very much use is made of the shore reception facilities provided by the harbour authority.
Moreover, where masters of ships are tempted to ignore the facilities and discharge their oily residues illegally, I suspect that the inconvenience and delay in getting a ship alongside the shore

facility is a more important factor in their minds than any charge made for the use of the facility. I think that the hon. Gentleman himself recognises that.
When the amendments to the Convention are brought into force, it will no longer be permitted to discharge engine-room bilge water containing lubricating oil. That loophole will be removed, and we hope that effective enforcement will thereby become practical. Shipowners will, therefore, have to decide how to comply with the new requirement, either by providing effective means of excluding oil from any bilge-water that is discharged or by discharging the oily water ashore. We in my Department have every intention of making sure that this requirement is effectively enforced. With the assistance of the higher penalties now provided in the Bill, I think that this is the right way of seeing that shore reception facilities are used whenever appropriate, and it is preferable to seeking a way to subsidise their use.
But there is one much more important positive objection to the new Clause. Even under the new regulations it will not be every ship that has a need to use shore reception facilities. One would imagine that it will probably be the minority. If harbour authorities were prohibited from making specific charges for the use of their facilities, they would have to recover their costs by charges on the generality of port users, and, therefore, the whole body of port users would be required to pay for facilities for which, one would hope, only a minority would have a use. The subsidy to that minority would be at the expense of those owners who had provided their ships with alternative satisfactory means of dealing with oil residues. I do not think it would be desirable, fair or right to impose an extra cost upon them. For that reason, I hope that the House will reject the new Clause, attractive though it may be.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Gentleman relied rather heavily on the fact that if these so-called "free" facilities were made available—and he was right in this—they would not be free because the cost incurred by some users would be spread through the whole of the users of a particular port. On Merseyside we are conscious of the cost of port facilities of this kind, as any


other hon. Member from any other port must be.
But I challenge the hon. Gentleman on one point. He said that only a minority of the users of any port are using the facilities at this time, or ought to be using them. If he goes back over the statistics and the information he can get, he will find that, while it is still only a minority of the total number using any port, it is an ever-increasing minority. It may well be that in a few years' time it will be the majority. There is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman from later consideration of the idea in this new Clause, and I think he will find that there will be a majority as the years go by. If, then, a majority of the users of a port who ought to be using these facilities are paying for them through a general levy so that they are paying for them in any case, they may well be encouraged to use them.
Many of the facilities of our ports in the United Kingdom are old. If we are to spread through the whole range of port facilities the provision of pipelines or berths to ensure enough tanker berths, the cost will be very great. It may be that the hon. Gentleman's Department will be advised to look at the facilities that are being provided in the new ports under construction—for example, the Seaforth scheme, the Gillingham scheme and the new London Docks. Perhaps we can even speak of a possible Foulness port. The idea that these installations should be planned and built into these new facilities and ports is very worthy of consideration.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 3

POLLUTION PREVENTION OFFICERS

(1) Where it appears to a pollution prevention officer that a contravention of any of the provisions of section 1 or 3 of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955 as amended by this Act has at any time taken place, he may—

(a) go on board the ship in relation to which the contravention has at any time taken place, with or without persons assigned to assist him in his duties, and for that purpose may require the ship to stop and do anything else which will facilitate the boarding of the ship, and
(b) take the ship and the crew of the ship to the port which appears to him to be the nearest convenient port in the United

Kingdom and detain the ship and the crew in the port until the completion of proceedings for the contravention.

(2) The following persons shall be pollution prevention officers for the purposes of this section—

(a) commissioned officers of any of Her Majesty's ships;
(b) officers of Customs and Excise;
(c) the following members of the Coastguard; that is to say:

inspectors, district officers and members in charge of coastguard stations;
(d) surveyors of the Department of Trade and Industry; and
(e) other persons appointed pollution prevention officers by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Prestcott.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
We are here attempting to tackle the fundamental problem—enforcement. The Government are to be congratulated on continuing a Bill started by the last Government to deal with the problem ahead of most other countries under the Convention. We argued in Committee that the Bill has a number of failings. One of the major problems is that of enforcement. The Bill clearly states the offences and becomes involved in making regulations for British ships. As most of us are aware, many of the problems arise from vessels of other nations. This is an international issue. We shall be dealing with the international consequences of the problem in later Amendments.
The Bill, stating the offences, lays down regulations concerning the records in order that we may be able to apprehend offenders by spot inspections. By these records, we shall have some indication of what is happening to dirty oil, which generally comes about through the load-on-top system which has caused a great deal of the problems. A load-on-top system has been developed by a company in this country which has made a considerable advance towards solving the problem. We have to be concerned with those who ignore moral pressures to adopt these methods and with those countries which do not compel their ships to adopt these methods and whose ships discharge by night or day, if it is thought that they will not be caught, and whose discharges create the problems with which the Bill is meant to deal. The Clause


is meant to bring the problem to the fore. We do not claim precision for its wording. It is an attempt to apprehend those who commit these offences at sea.
The Bill lays down the offences and the fines which may be imposed on masters and owners who commit them, but we are concerned to find a deterrent to prevent the offences. The importance of a deterrent depends upon how much those who commit offences believe that they have a change of getting away with them. We were told in Committee that inspections under the 1955 legislation were made by surveyors and Board of Trade personnel and that in 1969 there were about 2,000 inspections. That is only about nine a day and is far from enough considering the number of ports in this country. That is not a sufficient deterrent.
Subsection (2) of the new Clause deals with offences committed by the discharge of oil in port. There is not much of a problem here as it is usually easy to detect the source of such a discharge. The great problem is offences at sea. Log books may record voyages and discharges of oil, but are not necessarily sufficient to show where an offence has been committed. We are dealing with British ships, but much of the problem is created by the discharges of ships of other countries. Far more oil is discharged into our oceans illegally than as a result of collisions. After his recent voyage, Thor Heyerdahl talked about huge balls of oil which he found floating in the ocean, often away from the usual shipping lanes. The problem is increasing in intensity and immensity.
We have rightly praised load-on-top systems; but it must be remembered that even with such systems, because of the powerful pumps which are used by modern tankers and even if the machinery is stopped when the operation reaches the recommended period when oil and water have come together to form the sludge which creates part of the pollution problem, measuring devices are not sufficiently accurate to prevent every illegal discharge. Discharges of oil at that stage can be far greater than the permitted amount at sea.
Using the load-on-top system the amount of sludge is equivalent to one-tenth of 1 per cent. so that with a 200,000-ton tanker we are talking of 200

tons of sludge. When we remember that 800 vessels a day use the Channel we can see that these discharges of oil, insignificant in themselves, create enormous problems, and this highlights the importance of the separators mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). Even using the meter system for oil discharge a decision has to be made by someone once a level is reached as to whether an illegal discharge should be made. What the person will have in mind are his chances of being caught and at present they are minimal. We have heard of the problems of using pilots to spot illegal discharges or offering money to members of the crew. These discharges take place at sea and they must try to catch the offenders there.
The second kind of offence concerns those vessels with dirty sludge as a result of the load-on-top system, which discharge in the middle of an ocean and then pick up another cargo. They are not too worried about the discharge of sludge from the tanks and then they return to this country. Once the vessel has done a number of voyages it will be almost impossible to detect whether it has discharged the sludge brought about through the load-on-top system.
That presumes that regular inspections will be made in an English port. The Bill does not propose to increase the number of those carrying out inspections, and the likelihood that a vessel will be subject to a spot check is slight. We cannot draft measures which will prevent these problems but we have a greater chance of increasing the fear among people that they will be caught by increasing the checks to which vessels are subjected on arrival here.
In the Clause we suggest that a number of other bodies, such as the Custom and Coastguard, could be considered to be on watch, playing a part in prosecuting those who commit this offence. Many engineers and captains do not do this but there are a few and it is with those that we are concerned. If they had to consider other vessels being on the look-out they may stop to think before committing the offence. Therefore, I ask the Minister to reconsider the view which he stated in Committee on 17th November:
We shall have to look at the manpower situation from time to time, but at this


moment the advice we have from the experts is that the Bill should facilitate rather than hamper their task."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 17th November, 1970; c. 41.]
Now is the time to look at the manpower situation. The Bill is an attempt to handle the problem, but we must bear in mind the increasing size and number of tankers being built and used to meet the increasing demand for oil. It is proposed to have the same manpower to deal with an ever-increasing problem. I hope that the Minister will take these points into account. We must have greater manpower in order to make the inspections which are essential for the proper enforcement of the Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: The more I look at the Clause, the more it endears itself to me and the more fascinating I find it. Since my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is my neighbour, I feel fraternal and I must support him.
I seize upon a narrow point in my hon. Friend's argument about enforcement. He used also the word "deterrent". In this connection, I refer to subsection (2)(a) of the new Clause:
commissioned officers of any of Her Majesty's ships".
On these benches we once had a famous Cabinet Minister who said that anyone who willed the end must also will the means. What on earth is the good of setting out all these desirable aims and objectives without at the same time having some means of enforcement.
In Committee, I put to the Minister the analogy—he thought it a somewhat vague analogy—of the vessels which we use for protecting our deep-sea fishery vessels and for detecting offences against the law on the high seas. Would the Minister address his mind to that? Why not use Her Majesty's ships, what we formally term the Queen's Navy? The people who discharge oil at sea are commercial pirates, ditching this filthy muck into the ocean, and taking us nearer to what some of us fear will, by the year 2000 A.D., be an ecological "Munich". We need vessels to protect us and other nations against this abominable filth poured into the seas. Let the Minister

regard these people as what they are—I use the true advisedly—shipping villains.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East suggested, though not in so many words, that eight vessels out of 10 obey the law, if I may put it that way. But two vessels out of 10—mainly under the Japanese flag—do not. We often talk about flags of convenience. But this is not Liberia, if I may put a word in for that State, with which I have some connection. As I say, these are mainly Japanese ships, and, without doubt, the total—I stand to be corrected, but I believe this to be right—is at least 200,000 tons ditched or deposited in this way, which is the equivalent of many "Torrey Canyons", perhaps as many as 10 or 12.
This state of affairs must be tackled seriously. If we feel as a nation that we cannot tackle it on our own, why not act in conjunction with other nations, under the auspices of I.M.C.O. here in London? Why should we not have for this purpose something analogous to the United Nations peace-keeping force on land? Why cannot we have a force of that kind so that our Navy, in co-operation with other nations, could join in dealing with this menace on the seas?
We must have enforcement. It is no good expressing a pious hope that these people will behave themselves in future. It is a perfectly fair analogy to refer to what is done in respect of deep-sea fishing. In the same way, we could expect the Queen's Navy, or, as it is put in the new Clause,
commissioned officers of any of Her Majesty's ships",
to be on the look out and to tackle the pirates or villains of the high seas.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I am always pleased to answer a debate in which the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) take part, because I know that they have a keen interest in this subject and they make their contributions with great enthusiasm. Clearly, not a drop of oil will touch Kingston upon Hull. I am intrigued by the suggestion by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that there should be some sort of United Nations force moving about the oceans. We shall think about it, but he will


appreciate that it would be a matter for international agreement and would involve a large number of countries.
The problem of enforcement has been not so much a shortage of surveyors and people to ascertain offences but an inability to pin an offence upon the offender because of lack of evidence. In that sense, the Bill will make their task much easier and will enable them to bring miscreants to justice far more easily. In the past, lack of evidence has been the problem.
The new Clause, moved with great sincerity by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, would enable pollution prevention officers, as he defines them, to go on board a ship, requiring it to stop if necessary, where they suspect that a breach of the Bill has occurred. Further, such an officer could take the ship into the nearest port and detain it until the completion of proceedings for contravention.
We debated this question fully in Standing Committee. I assure the House that I have carefully considered the various ways in which the requirements of the Bill might be more effectively enforced. I considered the possibility of detention of the ship until the completion of proceedings before the Bill was introduced and I rejected it. As I told the Committee, my reason for doing so was that a power such as his might impose a quite disproportionate financial penalty on the persons interested in a ship even before the criminal proceedings could be dealt with in circumstances in which it might turn out that no offence had been committed. A large tanker may cost thousands of pounds a day to run. To have the ship immobilised because it was suspected that an offence had been committed in connection with it would be unduly severe.
There is one precedent for this power on which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West touched; namely, that power found in the Sea Fisheries Act, 1968, in relation to fishery offences. But it is most unusual and is made necessary only because foreign fishing boats commit offences under that Act, principally by fishing in United Kingdom waters contrary to the Act, without calling at a United Kingdom port. That is not usual in relation to pollution offences.

Mr. James Johnson: Is it not a fact that our fishery protection vessels can pursue offenders to any distance? I accept that the offence may have taken place 10 miles offshore, but the vessel is pursued and chased. If there is oil pollution 10 or 20 miles offshore, why is it not possible to have a vessel of a similar nature to pursue and hound the offender?

Mr. Grant: I do not think the two things are analogous. The fishery poacher never comes into a port. He deliberately poaches in the territorial waters of a country. The case of the oil pollution is utterly and entirely different. He comes into a United Kingdom port. The effect of the Bill is that he will be liable if he discharges oil illegally anywhere in the world. What the hon. Gentleman has said is not a parallel case because the fishing boat cannot be detained in port. The fishery offender cannot be got hold of and he never comes into port, whereas the tanker does. The pollution offence is not parallel with the fishery offence.
Nevertheless, I recognise that there is a real problem with which this proposal attempts to deal. But I am not convinced that prosecution of offences under the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts is proving so difficult as to necessitate the introduction of special provisions which cut across the general principles of procedure applicable in criminal cases in this country. I recall giving analogies in Committee. The difficulty of bringing proceedings against foreign masters or sailors is a common one applicable to offences under the Merchant Shipping Acts and the general law. In the absence of real proof of need in this context, I do not think that a provision peculiar to the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts is justifiable.
Lastly and most important, there is considerable danger that if legislation of this kind became widespread it could lead to considerable harassment and delays to United Kingdom shipping. The Canadians have already introduced a provision of this type, and our view is that it could be detrimental to our shipping interests generally if this example were to spread throughout the world.
I should like to make two further comments which may lead the House to consider that the new Clause is unnecessary.


The powers of sea fishery officers are strictly limited to taking action against foreign fishing boats which are within United Kingdom fishery limits and British fishing boats anywhere. This Clause does not appear to have any such geographical limitation, yet we should be in breach of international law if we sought to interfere with foreign ships on the high seas or even passing innocently through our territorial waters. The exception in the Sea Fisheries Act occurs only as a result of international agreement.
9.0 p.m.
Secondly, in relation to the pollution prevention officer which the hon. Gentleman seeks to create, I draw attention to Section 11 of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955. This gives to all surveyors of ships and other persons—who would include any persons listed in subsection (2) of the new Clause—appointed as inspectors by the Secretary of State, all the powers of an inspector under Section 729 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. This Section gives him power, among other things—I invite the House to consider this—to go on board any ship and inspect it or its equipment; to enter any premises or inspect apparatus as necessary; to summon witnesses and examine them; to require the production of necessary documents; and to examine witnesses on oath. Section 11 of the 1955 Act makes it clear that these powers include the power to test equipment the vessel is required to have fitted, and to require the production of oil record books. Furthermore, where the vessel is in harbour, the harbourmaster has similar powers.
Therefore, we do not think it right to give inspectors the sweeping powers which this new Clause envisages. I hope that the House will agree that our inspectors already have sufficiently wide powers. For these reasons I regret that I cannot recommend the House to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Ogden: It is perhaps appropriate that the representative of that sea-girt constituency of Wirral should have joined us at this time when we are discussing oil in navigable waters, for every Member of the House will be aware of the interest which you, Mr. Speaker, took

in matters of navigation and the Merchant Navy so near your own constituency.
The Minister, in replying, and rejecting the new Clause, suggested that his reason was not the shortage of ships or of the personnel to discover whether someone is breaking the law in this regard, but that one of the reasons was identifying the source of the oil and linking a sample of the oil with a particular ship, and particularly because of the size of the oceans and the amount of traffic. He told the House he was more than anxious to answer questions from Members representing Kingston upon Hull. I do not want to take advantage of the fact that he comes from an inland port and that I come from a Merseyside one, but I wonder whether he has had drawn to his attention an article which appeared in yesterday's issue of The Times in which the science correspondent of that newspaper reported:
A method of computer analysis for identifying rapidly the source of oil slicks at sea is being developed at the Admiralty Materials Laboratory near Poole, Dorset. The way the type of oil that causes pollution can be analysed to provide certain identification is described in the current issue of the journal Laboratory Practice by a research group from the laboratory. The scientists believe the method can be used to find out the origin of a spillage of crude oil, residues from tank bottoms, or furnace fuel oil.
I would hope that, in the light of that, and the answer which he gave, he might take up this point, and consult his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, the scientists, civil servants and officers who are at work on this problem. It has always been an extremely difficult one. We may find the ship, but to link a sample of oil with the ship is difficult. Since the work seems to have got so near to completion it would appear that it would be useful to have the results of that work. I wonder whether, instead of just nodding, he would just add a comment. I should like his agreement, and if he could put it on record that would be appreciated.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: As this is the first time I have spoken since you have been elected to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, let me be permitted to say how delightful it is to see you sitting where you are.
The only reason I intervene is that I am a little concerned about the reply which my hon. Friend gave to this new Clause, having been Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which looked into coastal pollution after the experience we had with the "Torrey Canyon". It was only natural to consider what both the United Kingdom Government and I.M.C.O. might do with a view to ensuring that encouragement was given to the use of the load-on-top system and that any master of a ship who discharged oil in navigable waters, however far out to sea, should be able to be hauled up at once. We discussed at some length the instruction that is now given to masters of ships to ensure that they are fully aware of how to use the load-on-top system and how to ensure that they prevent pollution. I hope that my hon. Friend's answer will not be a final one. I foresee the day when I.M.C.O. will take the view very strongly that there must be oceanic enforcement as well as coastal water enforcement of this legislation.
I am sorry that I was unable to be present on Second Reading because I should have liked to participate. I do not want to get out of order on the new Clause, but I hope that I may be allowed to say that I think there is a new spirit abroad in the fighting of pollution. The encouraging way in which so many countries have taken up the load-on-top system makes it increasingly important that those owners who do not adapt their ships to this system should be more stringently treated than ever before. As time goes on it will be even more difficult to identify them, and there may well have to be some form of international inspectorate. The Minister referred to Section 11 of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955, which provides:
The Minister may appoint any person as an inspector to report to him—
(a) whether the prohibitions, restrictions and obligations … have been complied with;".
I do not think that this really covers the point. I hope that this may be given further thought, although I recognise that we could waste a lot of money and possibly damage British interests by overdoing it. At the same time, I am always a little suspicious when I hear the argument used that hypothetically this might possibly damage our interests. We should

be in the forefront, as I believe we are. Shell in particular has led the way with the introduction of the load-on-top system. We are in the lead in persuading the world to do more about these matters than ever before, and it would be a pity if we did not arm the appropriate body with sufficient powers of inspection and appoint sufficient people with the right qualifications to carry out this inspection.
I hope that my hon. Friend will look at this again and give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will support anything that I.M.C.O. tries to do by general agreement to ensure that those who are still reluctant to fall in with the sensible modern approach to this matter are properly inspected, properly restrained and properly punished.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the United Kingdom is very much in the lead in all these activities. We have certainly been extremely active in I.M.C.O. and, as I shall say later on Third Reading, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, we are in this Bill almost the first country to ratify the convention and we hope to be one of the first to bring in a Bill dealing with civil liability. There is no question of the United Kingdom dragging its feet. Far from it, we are very well in advance.
We have considered carefully the matter of enforcement and are satisfied that the existing powers are sufficient and that the provisions in the new Bill will make that much easier the task of the officers concerned. This will be necessary to make evidence stand up in court and to obtain a conviction. This is what we hope the Bill will do. We shall, of course, keep the matter under review and consider carefully whether we need any further powers. If my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) looks with great care at the 1955 Act, he will find that the powers I have recited are available to our inspectors at the moment.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) drew attention to an article in The Times. This is known to my Department, and our scientists are engaged on similar lines of research as the Admiralty; our laboratories and experts are actively concerned with this


matter. I thought the hon. Gentleman would like to have that assurance.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 4

REGULATION OF NAVIGATION

The following section shall be added to the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts, 1955 and 1963:—
'15B. The Board of Trade may for the purpose of implementing United Kingdom obligations between any two or more states party to any I.M.C.O. agreement for reducing the risk of discharge of oil resulting from accidents make regulations relating to navigation of oil tankers within such sea areas as shall be defined thereon including regulations prescribing the saparation of sea traffic proceeding in opposite directions'.—[Mr. Mason.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Roy Mason: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I doubt whether there is a country in the world more in danger of the awful consequences of pollution of the sea by oil than is Britain. We all remember the "Torrey Canyon", the "Pacific Glory" and "Allegro", the "Taxaco Caribbean" and now the "Brandenburg" accidents. All these have made us acutely aware of that fact.
Our straits and coastal waterways are the busiest in the world, particularly with oil tankers. The bigger the vessel, the bigger the menace to our coastline and beaches, with the inevitable costs to the Government and local authorities. I believe our coastline and beaches will be menaced for many years to come. The recent collisions were not freakish, isolated incidents. Some 10 or 11 tanker accidents per year take place near our shores, so the chance of another belch of oil from a super tanker, and possibly loss of life, could happen at any time.
This Bill is intent upon curbing the illegal discharge of oil at sea, increasing fines on the offender and establishing more detailed records of all movements of oil. In that sense it is a very good Bill, but I believe we must do more to impose stricter rules regarding the regulation of navigation of these mammoth oil tankers.
The Institute of Navigation recently reported that 7 per cent. of the world's

seagoing ships are involved in collisions every year and that the super oil tankers are the greatest menace of this group. These are vast ships, as big as aircraft carriers, and they are still growing in size. The Japanese are now building vessels of 300,000 tons. Their cargoes are frighteningly dangerous; the vessels are slow to manœuvre and difficult to stop. They are the problem ships of our age. One other alarming aspect of this problem is that many of the owners are under pressure to meet financial deadlines—because of the cost, size of cargo and immense investment in them. They tend to treat navigational regulations as of secondary importance, racing tides, cutting corners at sea, crossing sea lanes with quick turn-rounds, shelving maintenance—to mention just a few of the dangers.
Because this country is the most vulnerable to oil tanker accidents, because 500 million tons of oil per year are brought to Britain and other Western European countries, I want now to be assured that we have the powers to change the regulations of navigation as fast as we deem it necessary. That is the reason for the new Clause.
I wish to ask the Minister three specific questions. I should like to know what progress is being made in establishing proper longitudinal and lateral separation measures in all our waters and introducing more quickly the anti-collision rules, not necessarily waiting every time for the periodic slow-moving recommendations of inter-governmental maritime organisations.
9.15 p.m.
I hope that on this occasion—we have asked this question a number of times, from Second Reading right through Committee—the Minister can give a progress report on the work being done by his Department and the Institute of Navigation, which might give some satisfaction to the House. As he knows, the pilots, Trinity House and the master mariners have already expressed concern at the routing system in the Channel, where they estimate that 5 per cent. of vessels were actually sailing against the agreed traffic flow system. They themselves have recommended changes to the Minister; they will probably have to wait some time, even if he gives them sympathetic consideration, because they will have to go


through the I.M.C.O. machinery. But they, too, are in need of some reply to the ideas that they have put to him.
Secondly, why cannot the Government, and, if necessary, I.M.C.O., consider the possibility of giving these vast, highly lethal cargoes, oil tankers, vessels carrying highly concentrated explosives and methane tankers, the right of way on the high seas? At least Britain and her neighbouring Western European countries should consider this in our highly congested straits and channels.
We are a great importer of oil, and this, too, will go on for years. We are the most vulnerable of all the nations to tanker accidents and oil pollution. These tankers in our narrow sea lanes are becoming an even greater menace, and it is, therefore, incumbent upon us to take the initiative and change the law of the sea.
In that way, I would hope that these major vessels, these problem ships of our age, the tankers and the vessels carrying high explosives, should have the right of way on the high seas. Why is not this proposition feasible? I hope that the Minister will answer that tonight as well.
Finally, I believe that the Western European countries could, without waiting for I.M.C.O., convene a conference to establish a regional agreement. This would be to establish the necessary anti-collision routes and rights of way for these large and slow-manoeuvring tankers. It could be agreed within weeks if Her Majesty's Government would take the initiative with France and the other Western European nations which are involved along our own coastal ways. I.M.C.O. would then be responsible, in the end—not initially—for informing all the other maritime nations of this special regional agreement and of the rules to be observed in our coastal waters and the congested sea lanes between the United Kingdom and the coastline of Western Europe. Such a regional agreement is possible within the I.M.C.O. machinery.
I therefore hope that the Minister will treat all these suggestions seriously. I hope that the Government will give a blessing to the new Clause if the Minister feels that it is necessary as an addition to give him the powers that he needs expeditiously to deal with anti-collision

rules and regulations, and if he thinks that we cannot do it fast enough at the moment. I hope that he will also consider urgently some of the other considerations which I have mentioned.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The argument of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) is superficially very attractive, but, on the best evidence that we received in the Select Committee, his facts are wrong. It is not true to say that these big tankers are more dangerous than other ships. In some ways, they are more easily navigated. I suppose that we could have had few more reliable witnesses on this when we were taking evidence in that Select Committee than Lord Geddes. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at what Lord Geddes told our Committee, I think he would wish that he had not propounded some of the propositions which he has propounded this evening. One of the first things that we must get out of our thinking is the idea that it is safe to talk in terms of tramlines.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Lord Geddes, who knows quite a lot about tankers, pointed out that the accident involving the "Torrey Canyon" could be regarded as a maverick accident and unlikely to happen again.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: If it can be said to have been a maverick accident, it is obviously unlikely to happen again. We made it clear in our Report that there are two tanker accidents every week somewhere in the world. Obviously the risk of this happening is greater in narrow congested waters such as the English Channel than in other areas, particularly bearing in mind the siting of Rotterdam, London and Southampton. Naturally, the concentration of shipping coming in from the Western Approaches up the Channel automatically makes the Channel extremely dangerous for navigation.
Let us not assume that the big tankers are automatically the most dangerous to navigate. As I was saying, do not let us assume that it is sensible to think in terms of tramlines for shipping. Indeed, we on the Select Committee are convinced, particularly in relation to the phrase "tramlining", that there is no substitute for the good mastership of a ship. One can have all the rules and regulations in the world, but can one


always rely on them being complied with? A master must always bear in mind the need for good navigation, and unless we have good navigation we shall have collisions.
There was never a better example of this than a collision that occurred some time ago. It was between a ship called the "Ann Mildred Brovig", a quite small Norwegian vessel, which went batting into a much bigger ship and holed her badly. The bigger ship was, in fact, on precisely her right route. This collision occurred in fog, and, while one does not know what equipment the smaller vessel carried, the collision illustrates what can happen.
It is vital for us to realise that we are talking about a highly sophisticated business. I doubt whether any of us is sufficiently qualified to make complete sense of this. I can, therefore, only hope to help the House by mentioning, for example, that having had some preconceived ideas following the "Torrey Canyon" disaster, I was quickly disabused of them when I listened to some of the expert witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee.
I obviously do not have time tonight to cite all the evidence we took, which was voluminous. However, I wish to quote a few passages from the evidence of Lord Geddes. For example, referring particularly to stopping, he said:
These big tankers … have remarkably good manoeuvrability. Their turning circle is half a mile for a complete circle. But they can change course very rapidly. Their stopping distance, if you want to do a crash stop, which is a very rare thing to want to do, is something under two miles. However, one hears all sorts of stories about a stopping distance of ten or twelve miles. I will explain why you hear those stories. If you are coming up to the pilot or to the port approaches you clearly do not want, as with a car, to drive at full speed until the last minute and then slam the brakes on. You slow down gradually. Coming up to the pilot or to the port approaches you put the ship on standby at ten miles, get on to half speed and slow her down gradually in order to bring her to the condition in which you want her. That is why you hear of these enormous stopping distances which do not relate to emergencies. And emergencies do not normally relate to crash stops but to diversions.
We must recognise that, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Barnsley that we must also recognise with increasing intensity the appalling congestion in the Channel.
But we also have to recognise that whilst Trinity House may recommend reversing the main routes of the Channel, as it apparently now is recommending, so that a ship goes out along the coast of France and comes in on the English side, I believe, no one should suppose that that will absolve masters of ships from keeping a good lookout and making sure that the men on board are fit to be there. There is no substitute for that being done. I therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his new Clause somewhat over-simplifies the matter, and I am more frightened than I would otherwise be by his arguments, because I think that they are unsound.

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman talks about the Channel and the master mariners who now want to reverse the flow, which means that they want to turn the "tramlines" round—that is a simple word he used—but for the last 10 years they have been voluntarily trying to establish how the traffic should flow in the Channel. Since then, we have had faster and bigger and very many more vessels moving through the Channel than ever before. The master mariners and the Elder Brethren of Trinity House now say that it would be far safer to reverse the flow so that any danger would be towards the deeper water and not necessarily towards the coast.
I go along with the hon. Gentleman on his point about certificated masters, because the one major complaint of the United Kingdom pilots is that when they go on many foreign vessels, not British vessels, they are appalled by the few officers they find on the bridge; in many cases there is only one officer.

Mr. Ogden: I thought for a moment that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) intended to change this debate into a controversial occasion when what is before us is largely agreed on both sides of the House. No one would disagree about the importance of masters and crews, or with the fact that some ships, regardless of size, are more manoeuvrable than others, but I was surprised when the hon. Gentleman chided my right hon. Friend and said that large vessels are in the main fairly manoeuvrable and fairly easy to stop on a crash course. It may be that experts disagree, but our information is that


the sheer size of vessels makes for difficulties. We hear of one ship trying to go between the forepart and the stern of another ship. Size presents difficulties.
We accept that the Under-Secretary's responsibilities in this respect are very great indeed—in some way he may now be answering for his Minister who, unfortunately, is not able to be present this evening—but he must be aware that on 27th November last the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) introduced a debate on safety at sea. The House then accepted a Motion which indirectly called upon the Under-Secretary and his Department to undertake certain action.
During that debate several points raised in connection with the present Measure were mentioned. One point made by the Minister, when talking about disasters in the Channel, was that the collision between the "Pacific Glory" and the "Allegro" happened in a seaway which was not a so-called "separated" seaway, so that the rules concerning a separated seaway did not there apply. We have now had a collision in a separated seaway. In that earlier debate the Minister was still claiming that he and his colleagues and his Department intended to try to get an agreement through the whole range of I.M.C.O. and gave no concession at all in respect of a regional agreement. We are entitled now to ask what consideration the Minister and the Department have given to the Resolution of the House from 27th November till now—practically six weeks.
In that debate I asked questions about the newspaper proposals for the creation of a British marine authority, which might well be a way of working this kind of international agreement.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Clause is of limited utility. I repeat the point I made on Second Reading that, as long as there is any country which is not a party to I.M.C.O., we deceive ourselves if we imagine that we can control shipping upon the waterways of the world, because all that will happen is that ships will find it profitable to register under flags of convenience of countries which are still not signatories to I.M.C.O. That is the restriction on our practical ability.
I do not believe that adopting the Clause would achieve the measure of safety that we seek. I repeat that in narrow water such as the Channel nothing will achieve that objective but the extension of the territorial limits of contiguous States until they meet in the middle with no clear space.
Instead of seking to carry such Clauses and then persuade ourselves that we have dealt with the situation highlighted by the recent collisions, we should do as other countries have done and extend our territorial waters. Other States contiguous to the Channel would then take a similar view. That is the course which the Government, together with the other powers concerned, should be engaged on. If my hon. Friend can tell us that his mind is moving very much in this direction, I shall have an easier conscience in letting the Clause go by without its being embodied in this excellent Bill.

Mr. Booth: I cannot accept that it is of no value to seek regional agreements or any agreements on navigational problems unless they embrace every maritime country. That is a doctrine of despair, particularly at this time. Had it been believed by the British representative at the international convention that it was not right to place the legal responsibility for the operation of this form of legislation upon the nation whose vessels were registered with that nation, that should have been said at the time and we should not have been considering any legislation of this form.
The whole purpose of this legislation which we are considering and of legislation which will be considered in Parliaments of other member countries of I.M.C.O. is that each country will be responsible for the ships registered there. I give sufficient credit to those who attended the international conference to think that they considered a number of other methods. In fact, I know that they did. They came down in favour of this one in the belief that action by I.M.C.O. countries could be subsequently pressed upon other countries and that it was better that I.M.C.O. countries should go ahead and take this action, anyway, rather than waiting until some form of international organisation embracing all countries operating vessels could be set up.
However, there is an additional argument in favour of regional agreement which stems from the knowledge and experience of the countries in that region and from the sea trade that goes on between countries in a limited region. There are no doubt a number of special practices and conventions of navigation which can be operated in certain waters by at least the majority of vessels which regularly frequent those waters by knowledge of the practices which are agreed on a regional basis between two nations.
In the case of the Channel, I am not suggesting that it should be only Britain and France. Obviously, there are other Northern European nations with many vessels which trade in those waters. But I certainly believe that regional agreements by I.M.C.O. members, or even in some cases other nations, have a part to play in marine safety generally and the avoidance of oil pollution in particular.
The manoeuverability of large vessels has been questioned. It is flying in the face of common sense to say that we do not have a real manoeuverability problem with some of the larger vessels. The first reason is their draught. Their greater draught automatically restricts the areas in which they can manoeuvre and the routes they can take through narrow waters.
In addition, there is the scale problem of manoeuverability which results in stopping distances of miles rather than thousands of yards under specific conditions. Unfortunately, weather does not change in scale. In fog it is no easier to see further from the big vessel than from the small vessel. Therefore, in conditions of limited visibility there must be a special problem.
There has also been a technical-economic development which has caused a manoeuverability problem with the larger vessel—the tendency towards more and more large single-screw vessels. In the past large vessels tended to be multi-screw. They were twin-screw, sometimes three-screw, but more commonly large four-screw vessels, which could be manoeuvred on their engines much more readily than the large single-screw tanker, particularly when the vessel in running light and the top of its propeller is out of the water, which means that it has a propeller bias against turning in one

direction built into it by the nature of its method of propulsion.
Therefore, we must concede that one of the reasons why we need special navigation provisions arises not purely from the size of the tanker but from its size coupled with its economy of operation. No doubt, if there were not considerations of economy in operation a large tanker could be made as a twin-screw vessel and could have cross-bow propulsion units to enable it to turn more quickly and a whole range of other measures to enable it to manoeuvre more readily. But in practice it has been found that the cheapest large tanker to operate has the big single screw, without special manoeuvring devices. This is causing the navigation difficulties, which are a fair argument for the need for regional agreements on navigation.

Mr. Prescott: The Clause tries to deal with the problem we are outlining. The Channel is very congested and is becoming increasingly so, and collisions are made all the more likely by the increasing number of vessels coming into it. It is no accident that they are coming via the Channel, because many of the major oil routes in particular come through the Channel and on into Europe. We are concerned in the Bill not only with the pollution problem posed by such vessels but with accidents and collisions, which cause deaths as well as pollution, and the deaths of seamen represent a far greater problem than the problem of pollution. The two go together, however, in that when a tragedy occurs one effect is the massive oil pollution that we witnessed in the case of the "Torrey Canyon" and the threat of pollution from the "Pacific Glory".
The problem of congestion and how we control the traffic flows through the Channel is very important. Many marine authorities—the pilots, Trinity House and many others concerned with the problem daily—are questioning the routes, the "tramways" that we talk about, whilst other bodies connected with shipping hold an opposite point of view. This presents a real difficulty for the Government, whose ultimate responsibility is concern for safety, in deciding which is the best method to adopt. That causes a dilemma.
Nevertheless, the major question about navigation is not necessarily whether


ships should go upon the right or upon the left or down whichever way may be considered the safer, but the fact that the fundamental rules of navigation in the Channel are being questioned. We have not yet had the reports about the collision of the "Pacific Glory" and the "Allegro", but there is sufficient evidence already to suggest that both ships may have been obeying the international navigation rules of the sea. Very often in these cases there are very fine points concerning the angles at which ships entered the routes they had to plot from the ports they had left. Thus, both vessels might be right in their interpretation of the rules and yet there is a collision.
A challenging question now about the Channel is whether we should not consider safer rules of navigation in this congested waterway, such as those suggested by my right hon. Friend about giving way to vessels like tankers. There are differences of view, which must be given immediate consideration, about the rules of traffic and the rules of navigation, particularly in the Channel, which gives us cause for our most immediate concern.
The rules of navigation are one part of the maintenance of orderly traffic through the Channel. What is equally important is the quality of those who man the vessels—the safe and adequate manning and the qualities and certificates of qualifications of those who give the orders, the captains and the officers. This must be a priority in our consideration. Evidence has come to light, particularly in the case of the "Torrey Canyon" and from other inquiries we have had recently—perhaps in the case of the "Pacific Glory" and the "Allegro"—which questions the quality of seamanship and certification of those who charter and man these vessels. There are doubts as to whether they are of sufficient quality for these men to be put in charge of such potentially dangerous vessels.
We in seafaring have constantly complained of the deteriorating standards, particularly on certain vessels. Flags of convenience, particularly the Liberian, have been mentioned. Liberia has over 19 million tons of oil tankers. It has many new ships, and these are huge vessels of the type which the Select Committee on Science and Technology investigated in the case of the "Torrey

Canyon". These ships have inadequate manning. More important, these countries do not impose the necessity for high standards of certification, particularly for officers, in contrast to the standards normally maintained by the traditional maritime countries. It is almost like haying a fast car on a motorway driven by someone who cannot really drive.
Flag-of-convenience countries have about 40 per cent. of world shipping, and we must be concerned at their failure to impose adequate standards. It is all very well for us to say that our sovereignty extends to British ships, but the consequences which flow from the lower standards of manning of flag-of-convenience ships also greatly affect us, as was brought out in the case of the "Torrey Canyon".
If anything is to be done about the problem, we have to have some sort of international control. This could be arranged through I.M.C.O., but experience has shown that when I.M.C.O. finally decides on a convention many countries do not sign it and many others delay signature. Even if we got agreement now, therefore, we could not expect a convention to be observed for perhaps two or three years. Meanwhile, deaths in the English Channel will continue to increase with the constant increase in traffic.
9.45 p.m.
We must have some sort of control and we cannot wait for the period which would be involved in getting co-operation through I.M.C.O., for in the next few years deaths of seamen, collisions and pollution will increase. The Clause therefore proposes that, while we should work for an eventual convention through I.M.C.O., we should arrange with countries bordering the Channel—France, Germany, Holland and so forth—to have some sort of agreement to police this important waterway.
The difficulty is going outside territorial waters. We can lay down regulations to control traffic within territorial waters, but what do we do about international waterways? If a tanker has a collision outside territorial waters, as we have been made only too painfully aware, that does not mean that we are necessarily free of the resulting pollution. But controlling international waterways is a


thorny problem and it will be difficult to get some sort of agreement, for instance, to extend territorial waters.
If we attempt to force vessels below required standards to observe rules which we lay down, we may make ourselves liable to charges of piracy on international waterways. However, what we propose is that vessels which do not have proper standards of management and whose officers and masters do not have proper certification, and which, therefore, are potential dangers, shall not be allowed to enter the ports of those countries which border the Channel. The oil which comes in tankers from the Middle East comes to oil refineries in the countries concerned, and in that way we may be able to exercise some control over the standards of the tankers. We could make regional agreements among ourselves and in that way exercise a powerful sanction against vessels on which minimum safety standards are ignored and which, therefore, create much of the problem.
The Clause could be a useful interim device pending international agreement. If we await international agreement through I.M.C.O., many seamen will die and more collisions will occur and much more pollution will be caused in the Channel, not to mention windows broken by explosions such as we have recently experienced. It is incumbent upon the Board of Trade to adopt the recommendations of the Rochdale Report, to set up a statutory marine authority with the responsibility of carrying out a number of functions including participating "fully in international negotiations to establish standards" To do this is a first step towards getting agreement. To hang on for I.M.C.O. to do something will be to pay a terrible price. This Clause goes one step towards solving the problem.

Mr. Anthony Grant: It was helpful to have the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), because he reminded us in clear terms that, with all the advances of technology and sophistication of equipment, at the end of the day in these operations at sea we rely upon the human element and the skill of the mariner.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has put some points to me, crisply and succinctly and I hope that in

answering them I can deal with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) at the same time. As I understand it there are three matters. First, the right hon. Gentleman asked me to report on what progress has been made to establish more quickly anti-collision routes. I can tell him that traffic separation schemes must really find international acceptance. This is the only practical solution. The process of consultation before such agreement is reached, on the details of the scheme, inevitably takes time if we are to achieve the correct result.
As to routing in the English Channel, my Department has been urgently working out new proposals which will be discussed at a meeting next week covering a wide range of expert opinion. After full consultation—

Mr. Prescott: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the trade unions will be invited to this meeting?

Mr. Grant: We shall be only too pleased to hear trade union views on this and will value any points that they care to make. After full consultation with United Kingdom maritime interests we intend putting our proposals to I.M.C.O. at the next meeting of its Maritime Safety Committee in March. We are also considering urgently whether the existing scheme in the Dover Straits ought to be made mandatory. Many of us feel that this would be desirable but there are problems of enforcement which we are examining. If it is desirable then we shall seek, through I.M.C.O., international agreement. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to be assured that we are moving as vigorously as we can in this direction. It is important that we achieve the right result.
Perhaps I could say a word or two about what has occupied the columns of the Press in the last few days and has been referred to in the debate, namely the views of Trinity House and the Master Mariners as opposed, apparently, to everyone else. I should not like it to be thought, as has been suggested in certain parts of the Press, that it is an easy solution merely to change the routes around. It is by no means as simple nor is it likely, necessarily, in our view to reduce collisions. It could increase them. This has been considered at great length


by a great number of people who are extremely expert on this subject, and it will continue to be examined. I do not want the House to run away with the idea that by a mere switch one can overcome what is a very difficult problem.

Mr. Mason: Do I take it that the Under-Secretary has not yet finally made up his mind about the proposals put to his Department by the Elder Brethren and master mariners? He may be sceptical at this stage, but is it still under consideration or has he replied saying that it might prove more dangerous than they envisage?

Mr. Grant: That view is on present information that we have. What I am saying is that we need more information, as to depths in the Channel, and this is at the moment, I understand, being assembled by hydrographers doing detailed research. Until we have that precisely, we shall not be able to express a useful view on these matters. We are awaiting that information. When we have it, then we can have a considered view.
The second question asked by the right hon. Gentleman was about whether we should change the laws of the seas so as to give ships carrying lethal cargoes a right of way. This proposal has some attraction at first glance. It is something to be very carefully considered in the course of the current review of the collision regulations. However, when it comes to thinking out the details of how it would work in practice, there are serious practical difficulties, as right hon. and hon. Members will realise. For example, one can imagine it working satisfactorily for an encounter between one ship with a dangerous cargo and another ordinary ship when they can clearly see and identify each other. But what would happen in bad visibility or fog? There are no means available at present, I am advised, by radar or otherwise, of identifying particular ships in fog as having the qualities necessary to give them a right of way.
Moreover, this idea would do nothing to assist in the situation where the two ships meeting both carry dangerous cargoes, as in the collision between the "Pacific Glory" and the "Allegro", both

tankers and both qualifying for the right of way. The normal collision regulations have to provide for this situation, and it is hard to see that a scheme of priorities would make much further contribution, even if it were practicable. But, having said that, and expressed our view, I assure the House that, if there is a way of getting over the practical difficulties, we should, naturally, consider it.
The third point put to me by the right hon. Gentleman and by several hon. Members was the question of a European conference in order to obtain a regional agreement to improve navigation in the English Channel. This is, again, an interesting idea and it may be that at some time such a conference would be useful. But I must warn the House that there are limitations. In particular, it is essential that any new arrangements for navigation in the English Channel are accepted by all the major maritime nations using it. I could see objections to trying to impose such arrangements, even with the support of other North-West European countries, if they had not found general acceptance.
I believe that we are likely to get quicker and more satisfactory results, therefore, by processing our proposals through the normal international machinery provided by I.M.C.O. It is all very well to assume that one can quickly get an agreement between a number of European countries, but—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

Question again proposed That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Grant: If, for example, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) wants them to do, it were intended that they should in some way boycott or ban vessels delivering to their ports, I envisage that to achieve agreement on that basis among European countries might take almost as long—if not longer, and probably be unenforceable—as it would take to go through the normal overall international machinery.
For those reasons, we are concentrating on getting our proposals ready in time for the meeting of the Maritime Safety Committee in March.
I remind the House that there could possibly be certain implications not altogether favourable for the United Kingdom if the concept of regional agreements were to be carried through in other parts of the world where we have considerable interests. In a nutshell, therefore, we think it best to concentrate, as rapidly as we can, on the international bodies.
I come now to the Clause itself, on which we have had a fairly wide-ranging debate. It would empower the Secretary of State, by regulation, to control the navigation of vessels within specified sea areas, and the controls would include separation of traffic going in opposite directions. In Committee, a similar proposal was put forward, and I undertook to consider whether we already had under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the powers which the Clause would give us, but it was put down for the Report stage before I was able to write to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) about it.
I accept that the Clause is limited to the making of regulations to implement United Kingdom obligations between any two or more States party to any I.M.C.O. agreement. I am advised that we already have power under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to do this. The manoeuvres of ships at sea are governed by the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. These were last revised by international agreement in 1960. Power to apply these regulations to United Kingdom ships stems from Section 418 of the 1894 Act. Section 424 allows the regulations to be imposed on foreign ships provided that the appropriate foreign countries agree. I assure the House, therefore, that we have the necessary powers, should these be necessary.
To shorten the matter, I can sum up by saying that I am satisfied that in all these matters we should continue to work for international agreement, and we should play, and will play, a full and active part in the work of revising the Collision Regulations. We already possess the powers needed to give effect to

agreements reached internationally which the Clause is designed to give us, and I must, therefore, invite the House to reject it.

Question put and negatived.

Mr. Speaker: We come now to the Amendments. I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is my first point of order under your guidance, and I have no doubt that both you and the House will hope that it will be my last.
We have made good progress in considering the four new Clauses taken so far, but you will have noted that there is also new Clause No. 5 on the Paper—Security of Lawful Ownership and Control—standing in my name. I am aware that it has been the wont of your predecessor to have a provisional list of selected Amendments posted in the Lobby at the beginning of a debate of this kind. In the House and elsewhere, Sir, you are known both as a person who says what he means and as one who means what he says, so I take it That "provisional selection" is exactly what you meant. Your predecessor in the Chair earlier this evening made no announcement at the beginning of the debate regarding what new Clauses or Amendments were selected—I make no complaint about that—and I was encouraged to believe that you were proposing to offer a sort of general amnesty this evening and that all would be acceptable.
It is a matter of some importance that the House should have concern for the security, lawful ownership and control, not only of British merchant ships, but of other ships passing through our waters. If any tanker near the British coast were to get into the wrong hands there would perhaps be a disaster which would outweigh any that we have had. Your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker, would be appreciated.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me warning that he would raise this point of order. The word "provisional" means provisional. The matter of selection is for the Chair and is not debatable. In fact, the hon. Gentleman's new Clause was out of order.

Clause 7

INCREASE OF MAXIMUM FINE FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 20, leave out 'In relation to' and insert:
'The limit of the fine that may be imposed on summary conviction in respect of'.
It would be convenient, as you have suggested, Mr. Speaker, to take Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 with this Amendment.
Hon. Members will recall that in the Bill as originally introduced we made provision for increasing from £1,000 to £5,000 the maximum penalty which could be imposed on summary conviction for a number of offences under the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts, 1955 and 1963, primarily those concerning the illegal discharge of oil at sea. £1,000 was already an exceptionally high figure for a fine on summary conviction, but we thought it right to make a considerable increase in view of the increased public concern about illegal discharges of oil and the general feeling that more stringent penalties ought to be imposed. It became clear, however, during the debate on Second Reading that there were demands from both sides of the House for the Government to go even further and provide for a maximum penalty much in excess of £5,000.
As the House knows, I advised the Standing Committee against adopting an Amendment raising the maximum to £50,000. This was not because I thought £50,000 too large a penalty for a serious pollution offence, but because it is far in excess of the fining powers normally available to magistrates. Because of this, magistrates may find themselves in some difficulty in deciding how to treat pollution offences within such a high maximum.
The cases which usually come before magistrates are relatively trivial, little or no damage is done, and, athough somewhat higher penalties than those imposed in the past could certainly be justified, £50,000 would be disproportionately a penalty on quite a new scale. We must remember that there is power to take a really serious case on indictment, when there is no limit to the fine which may be imposed, but there has been no occasion to do this in the past.
On the other hand, the new restrictions which will be brought into force under this Bill will create a new situation. We shall then have a better chance of catching a serious offender, one of those, for example, who deliberately discharges tank washings at sea instead of using "load on top". For such offences we certainly want to have a penalty available which will provide a real deterrent. Even so, the chances are that the power available to magistrates would not be relevant to such an offence. If the offence occurred on the high seas, it would be for the Government of the flag State to act, and if it were a British flag ship we would have the possibility of proceeding on indictment. However, there remains the possibility that a foreign ship might be caught committing a really serious pollution offence in waters within United Kingdom jurisdiction and we might have no choice but to prosecute before a magistrate. If there were to be such a case—which does not seem very likely—the magistrate might well feel it appropriate to impose a penalty of the size which has been proposed.
I gave an undertaking in Standing Committee to reconsider the £5,000 maximum originally proposed, and intended to return and report with a higher figure. I did not then think a penalty 10 times that sum appropriate because there are valid objections to making such an enormous departure from the normal level of powers available to magistrates, and the occasions when a magistrate will feel justified in imposing such a high penalty are, as I have explained, likely to be few.
On the other hand, the House has expressed itself in no uncertain terms on this question, and I have little doubt that the demands for an exceptionally high maximum penalty on summary conviction will have found many an echo among our constituents. There is a widespread feeling that the time has come for determined action to put a stop to unnecessary pollution, and this Government fully share that feeling.
We have, therefore, decided to accept the abnormally high figure of £50,000, and I am sure that this will be seen by the world as an indication that we are serious about pollution. I am sure that we can rely on the judgment of magistrates in interpreting the will of the House in respect of pollution offences.
However, one change is necessary, and that is the reason for these Amendments to Clause 7. As it stands, the Clause would apply the same maximum of £50,000 to offences under Section 5 of the 1955 Act. This Section enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about equipment to be fitted in ships to prevent oil pollution, and makes contravention of those regulations an offence. The Section applies only to British ships, and, therefore, the argument justifying an exceptional maximum penalty on summary conviction for illegal discharges of oil does not apply to offences under this Section. As only British ships are affected there would be no difficulty about proceeding on indictment against the owners in the absence of the master. We have, therefore, concluded that the maximum penalty on summary conviction for offences under Section 5 should not be increased above the maximum of £1,000 already provided in the 1955 Act. These Amendments provide accordingly, while leaving the maximum fine on summary conviction for illegal discharges of oil at £50,000.

Mr. Mason: I think the whole House will accept this very sensible, agreeable and, I think, big decision by the Minister. It is very pleasing to those who have been involved through Committee to this stage that he has been able to overcome the objections which we knew were being placed in his way by the Home Office.
The figure of £50,000 was floated as a possibility during the Second Reading debate and it was supported by practically every speaker during that debate, and in Committee both sides thought that our Amendment proposing £50,000 was wise. So we are particularly pleased that the Minister has been able to agree that we can raise the fine from £5,000 as proposed in the Bill initially up to £50,000 now for a guilty offender. As other maritime nations enact their legislation as a result of I.M.C.O.'s recommendation to deal with pollution at sea by oil I hope that they, too, will follow the lead by substantially increasing their fines for oil pollution. I think that the Government in this respect have now given an excellent lead.
We felt throughout that our reasoning was sound. If a fine is to act as a deterrent the initial £5,000 was certainly not

enough. It would have meant little to a major oil company anyway. It guilty, it would pay, would scoff, and would carry on. It is only rarely that they are caught anyway. To them, £5,000 would be an inconvenience and that is all. Most of the honourable oil companies will not mind the increase to £50,000 for illegal discharges because they are not going to be guilty anyway. We really want to deter the mavericks, the fly-by-night oil slickers who are illegally discharging oil by night and vanishing by morning, and a fine of this size may well be sufficient to do that.
Finally, as the Minister, during the Second Reading debate, said regarding the £5,000 fine:
It may incidentally benefit those who are put to the expense of clearing up the pollution, since the court may direct that they be recompensed out of the fine itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 579.]
That is as good a reason as any to establish the maximum fine at £50,000, and I only hope that those who are responsible for administering the law will remember it.

10.15 p.m.

Sir David Renton: We, too, on this side of the House greatly rejoice in the Government's wisdom in accepting the decision of the Standing Committee. It is sometimes in my experience not a bad thing to do anyway if in doubt. I was a little disappointed that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, with that modest charm, or charming modesty, which we have learnt to expect from him, in giving his reasons why he was asking the House to let the Clause be as it was subject to the extensions of it which he is making, did not give quite those convincing reasons in favour of his action which are available. I hope that I am not presuming too much if I attempt to assure him and the House that the Government's action is very wise indeed.
The first reason is that whenever we fix a maximum penalty we should try to make it big enough to cover the worst possible imaginable example of the offence in question. We should also make it big enough to act as a deterrent, and, bearing in mind the constant change in the value of money, big enough to stand the test of time. Bearing in mind the prevalence of these offences, the terrible damage they do to the quality not only


of human life but of marine life, the difficulty of detection and many other factors, surely £50,000 is not in excess in itself.
The only question is—and this is where my hon. Friend was I think in the greatest doubt—whether it is a penalty which should be placed at the disposal of the courts of summary jurisdiction. With great respect to him, when he said that this was disproportionate to what had been applied before and was on a new scale, I do not think he was correctly advised. Under the Customs and Excise legislation, the exchange control and currency legislation and the Companies Acts, courts of summary jurisdiction have power to award fines and fixed penalties, for example, in the case of Customs and Excise, three times the value of the goods, which can easily amount to as much as £50,000 and have on occasions done so. Other examples could be thought of. So I do not think that we are here creating a precedent of the kind my hon. Friend suggests.
In any event, apart from these good precedents which I have mentioned, there are surely practical advantages in having these cases dealt with in a court of summary jurisdiction fairly quickly rather than in a court of quarter sessions or assizes, which inevitably means delay, and will do so when we have the circuit courts after Beeching. In the interests of the ship owners and of everybody concerned, it is essential, with seafarer witnesses or witnesses who are flying about the world, that these cases should be dealt with quickly, and that means taking them in the courts of summary jurisdiction. If by any chance the court of summary jurisdiction awards too big a fine there is always the opportunity of appeal to put the matter right.
Therefore, I think that the Government were absolutely correct in their decision and correct also to pay a compliment to the Standing Committee by extending this £50,000 fine to the other offences mentioned in the Amendments we are considering.

Mr. James Johnson: May I make a Machiavellian intervention by thanking the Minister? I wished to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), who

had a short joust with the Chair over which Amendments and new Clauses were called.
I will not name the Amendment which I had hoped would be called, but I ask the Minister to cast his eye down the Amendment Paper, from which he will see that I am not satisfied even with £50,000. If we are talking about a wealthy shipping company which buys £10 million worth of tanker, I should have thought that, since this offence is so heinous, we might well have gone up to £100,000. We thank the Minister. I have in mind his words about the "load-on-top" techniques, which we want so badly. We had hoped to have a debate on that matter. We are unable to do so, and so I end by thanking the Minister for his £50,000 rather than the £100,000 figure.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish sincerely to thank my hon. Friend for what he has done. One does not need very much imagination to guess at the battles which he has had to fight, successfully, with other Government Departments which have not done their homework, were not aware of the problems involved, or else were in a state of hyper-anxiety. I am sure we are all grateful to him. It is also encouraging to Committees of this House that when reasonable action of this kind is taken, the Government do not then use their potential majority on Report to reverse a sensible decision taken by Standing Committee.

Mr. James Johnson: We on the Opposition benches would not wish to appear churlish. May I on behalf of my colleagues also thank the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The Question is, That the Amendment be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 2, in page 5, line 21, after first 'section', insert:
'under section 1 or section 3 of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955 or section 5 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, shall, instead of the sum of one thousand pounds specified in'.

No. 3 in line 22, leave out from '1964' to 'fifty' in line 25 and insert 'be the sum of'.—[Mr. Anthony Grant.]

Orders of the Day — OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Mason: This is now a changed Bill and a much more substantial one. To the House at large, and especially to this side of the House, it is a more acceptable Bill than was the original one. I believe this is the first Bill positively to tackle pollution in any form. It happens that this is one of the worst forms of pollution—oil pollution of the seas and the effects on our coastal waters and coastlines, with the consequent poisoning of our beaches and of marine and bird life. Oil spillages can have disastrous effects.
This Bill marks another great step forward towards the ultimate goal of not allowing any oil discharges into the sea whatsoever. Having moved from wholesale dumping into the oceans when no one cared about pollution—and, indeed, were mainly ignorant of all its consequences—we have been gradually step by step, or Bill by Bill, zoning the oceans of the world and determining where oil could be dumped and in what amounts, until now, when by this Bill we are establishing, first, that there will be no discharges of oil up to 50 miles from the coastline, and, secondly, only a scientifically assessed, legally allowable thin slick release which has no permanent adverse or pollutionary effects can be released elsewhere. No doubt there will come a time when a Bill will ban even that.
The necessity by law to make ships carry an oil record book—an oil movements ledger, if one likes—which must be submitted for inspection to show every movement of oil—loading, transfers and discharges—helps to tighten the noose around the guilty oil polluters. The Committee's wise Amendment to allow fines of up to £50,000 will help considerably. The big oil companies will not mind since they are aware of the dangers, and some of them are especially aware of their own image.
At this stage a word of praise is due to the Shell Oil Company for devising the

"load-on-top" technique in dealing with tank washings; and also to B.P. for devising its new technique of containing oil spillages. Both are to be applauded for their endeavours and should be encouraged to maintain these interests in defeating the menace of oil pollution.
Finally, we all hope that this Bill will help every maritime nation and everyone else who is treating oil pollution seriously to trap the fly-by-night oil slickers, those who do not use the "load-on-top" methods but clean by night, form these oil slicks and vanish in daylight. This Bill has our blessing. It emerged initially when I was at the Board of Trade. I only hope that every maritime nation will now follow our lead, especially making the fines high and penalising the polluters of the sea.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Laurance Reed: I understand that it is the custom for maiden speakers to pay a tribute to those whom they have displaced. The representative before me of the constituency of Bolton, East was Mr. Robert Howarth, well known, I think, for his contribution in the field of aviation and also for his sustained campaign to have crash barriers erected down the middle of motorways. Here it might be a little premature for me to pay my obsequies to Mr. Howarth, because I am certain that, with the ability that he has, he will quickly find his way back to this place—though not, I suggest, for Bolton, East.
I have been prompted to speak by a desire to proclaim a vested interest in this matter. This interest is not peculiar to me, nor to those I represent here because it is the vested interest we all have in the well-being of the environment which sustains us. The oceans, after all, cover 70 per cent. of the earth's surface and they are critical to maintaining the world's environment, contributing to the oxygen-carbon dioxide balance in the atmosphere, affecting global climate and constituting the source of the world's hydrological cycle. The oceans are also economically valuable, providing a variety of food, energy and mineral resources.
Britain, herself, in addition to protein food, takes from the sea, or the territory beneath it 70 per cent. of her natural gas, 10 per cent. of her coal, 10 per cent. of her sand and gravel and most of her


bromine and magnesium requirements—worth £200 million—yet they are only a fraction of the wealth which we might generate from the sea in future, provided that we learn to exploit these off-shore assets in a way which will leave the self-regenerative powers of the oceans substantially intact.
In this Bill, we have been concerned with just one aspect of ocean management; namely, how to put an end to an abuse by traditional users of the marine environment, those who use it as a medium of transportation—an abuse which, if left unchecked, could seriously impair these self-regenerative powers, and consequently diminish the value of the sea as a productive resource.
I am very gratified that my hon. Friend should have accepted the Amendment moved in Committee. I am chiefly gratified because I am one of those who are supposed to have rebelled against the Government. But it was never a question of voting against anyone, only of voting for something. Each one of us believed that what we were doing was right. My own views were simply that to charge a £50,000 fine instead of a £5,000 fine would constitute a greater deterrent to this offence. I also felt that £50,000 was more closely related to the gravity of the offence.
We must remember that we have had legislation on this question since the 1920s. I am afraid that the problem is not getting any better. Every year coastal authorities report an increasing number of oil slicks around our shores. In the first six months of 1969 the coastguard service reported 111 oil slicks. In the first six months of 1970 that total had risen to 193.
Accepting that there were new and better procedures for locating them and allowing for some of the reports to have been duplicated—and accepting that some of the slicks were the results of accidents, with which we are not concerned in this Bill—one is bound to wonder how many slicks were not sighted.
I have with me the Report of the Lancashire and Western Joint Sea Fisheries Committee for the first six months of 1970. Bolton, East, my constituency, is a member of this Committee, which is responsible for supervising fishery conservation inside our territorial

waters along about 440 miles of the Lancashire and North Wales coastline.
In one month of 1970, it is reported—and this is by no means the worst affected area—this happened: on 3rd March there was a one-mile oil slick about seven and a half miles west of the Bar Light vessel and on 4th March an aircraft reported a slick 20 miles west of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The rules relating to the Third Reading of a Bill are quite strict in that speeches must be relevant to the Measure.

Mr. Reed: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it is necessary to demonstrate the gravity of the situation that has arisen in regard to oil pollution. We cannot test the adequacy of the Measure without observing the nature and extent of the damage caused by oil pollution in the sea. That is my submission and I hope you will accept it.
The Report to which I referred shows that between 19th and 23rd March the same area was hit by further pollution, there being one slick five miles off Formby, with other slicks affecting Crosby and Southport. I am not sure, but I believe you are about to call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice to say that there were a large number of oil slicks sighted and that they were by no means small. One was four miles long and 400 yards wide.
We must put this problem of deliberate oil discharge into the sea against the background of an increasing volume of oil reaching the sea accidentally. We have heard a great deal about accidents and collisions involving tankers and tanker groundings. Do hon. Members know that 70 countries are now exploring for oil on their continental shelves? Do they know that 22 of them have found commercial oil deposits, that 17 per cent. of the world's oil production comes from offshore areas and that by 1980 that figure will be 40 per cent. of total world production?
Around our own continental shelf territory, apart from the oil province that we have found in the northern sector of the North Sea, there are great possibilities of finding additional oil resources to the north-west of the Orkney's, the Minches, St. George's Channel, Rockall Bank, and the Western Approaches, and even if we


are lucky enough to avoid a blow-out, as happened at Santa Barbara in California, there is still danger from undersea pipelines and under-sea storage tanks.
It is of the greatest importance, in these circumstances, that we put an end to the deliberate discharge of oil, precisely because it is avoidable. In so far as a large fine is a greater deterrent than a small one, that was a good reason for the Government accepting the Amendment to which I referred and, therefore, for welcoming the Bill as amended.
But that is not the only reason for welcoming the changes which we brought about in the Bill in Committee. There is also the question of relating any kind of penalty to the gravity of the offence. What I have heard tonight leads me to suppose that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends have not fully appreciated exactly what is at stake and what is involved in this matter. Perhaps I may be allowed to state swiftly four types of hurt, harm, injury and loss caused by oil pollution of the sea.
First of all, obviously, there is the threat to or loss of amenity value and the consequent threat to the tourist industry. We use our coastline for fishing, swimming, sun bathing, diving: obviously oil slicks present a threat to the full enjoyment of these pleasures which millions enjoy.
Secondly, there is the risk to public health. Cancerous growths have been found on various varieties of shellfish and also on certain varieties of free swimming fish such as Dover sole, and it is believed, although it is not known for certain, that the cause is oil and oily waters in the sea. Recent research in the United States has shown that hydrocarbons of the kind that can cause cancer in man are concentrated in certain varieties of oyster and mollusc in polluted waters, and though no one has yet shown that cancer in humans results directly from the consumption of carcinogens in sea food, public health officials in the United States do not discount this possibility.
Thirdly, there is the direct economic loss to the fishing industry. We know something of the damage that is done to marine life inside the coastal area generally

by oil pollution or by the cleanup operations. The French have attempted to express this in money terms. They calculated the "biomass"—the total volume of vegetable and living matter—along a 50 kilometre stretch of their coast to a depth of 15 metres. They put it at a certain sum, and to that they added one year's interest or yield. They calculated that the "Torrey Canyon's" oil had destroyed 10 per cent. of this 'biological capital', and that the total loss on this stretch of coast was £80,000.
Outside the coastal zone it is popularly believed that oil does not do much damage, but that is a fallacy. To begin with, oil is lethal to the eggs and larvae of fish and it just so happens that a number of economically important fisheries begin their life in the top five centimetres of the ocean. After a time the oil is emulsified, either by the action taken to disperse it or by normal wave action. It then ceases to be a mere surface layer and becomes an integral part of the aqueous environment. Here it can become lethal to adult fish, and to benthic organisms, and to zooplankton and phytoplankton which are the basis of primary production in the sea.
These are only its lethal effect. There are also many sub-lethal effects that cause loss to inshore fishermen. The growth, the reproduction and the quality of fish can all be affected. Fish, being itinerant creatures, have a habit of pushing into cleaner waters when their normal habitat is fouled, and it can be a serious and permanent loss to fishermen if, as a result of repeated oil spills in the sea, the fish are induced to change their migratory patterns.
Fish can also be tainted, and that reduces their market value assuming they can be sold when in that state at all. It has been shown that the oily discharge from an outboard motor is sufficient to pollute all fish within 1 acre-foot of the motor.
Fourthly, there is the long-term contamination of the marine environment itself. It was these long-term effects which were singled out for special emphasis at the Conference on Marine Pollution held last December by the Food and Agriculture Organisation. We know that certain substances that reach the sea which are either harmless or relatively


so can be made harmful or highly toxic as a result of either the chemistry of the sea itself or through biological concentration in the food chain. We had cases of this—D.D.T., polychlorinated biphenyls and, more recently—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must once again refer the hon. Gentleman to the subject in the Bill as it is before us now.

Mr. Reed: I am coming to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was about to say that the poisons in oil include carcinogens, which are cancer-producing agents, and they can be biologically accumulated through the food chain in the same way. What I am trying to impress upon the House is that, if the House is to make an asessment of what is done in the Bill, it is essential to understand exactly what oil does in the marine environment and the total effect it has. I submit that this is entirely relevant to what I am saying.
Oil can also damage marine ecosystems, because sea animals use the chemistry of the sea to transmit and receive information and messages, and they use these channels to select their habitats, their food, their mating partners, and even to detect their enemies. Very minute quantities of oil can impair—can block—these communication channels and, consequently, cause major biological disruptions. Phytoplankton in the upper surface of the sea depend upon sunlight to form organic compounds both from water and carbon dioxide. This is the process of photosynthesis. It fuels the entire biological life cycle in the oceans. Yet in some parts of the sea there is as much as 500 litres of oil to every square kilometre. "Atlantis II", a U.S. oceanographic vessel, recently discovered that in the Sargasso Sea there are now more tarry oil lumps than plant life in the upper surface layers. This would be sufficient seriously to reduce the amount of solar radiation that penetrates the upper surface layers and consequently to impair the entire photo-synthetic process.
It is very difficult to say what effect all this has had on the productivity of the oceans, but it is perhaps relevant to draw the attention of the House to the observations of a distinguished marine biologist internationally renowned who has spent a lifetime exploring underwater. He says:

We can say from the evidence we have that the intensity of life in all the seas of the world has declined by between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. in the past 20 years. These comments bear on fixed fauna, on vegetation, plankton, shell fish, edible and non-edible fish, coral and all marine life.
This is Jacques Cousteau, who is no charlatan. He does not attribute all this to pollution by oil, but makes it clear that it has played its part.
The evidence of Thor Heyerdahl, who crossed the Atlantic literally in a sea of oils, is evidence which simply confirms a far more general phenomenon; because, as he remained on the surface, all that he saw was the oil. Had he been able to compare by plunging repeatedly under his boat, he would have been able to note that the actual transparency of the seas was being reduced.
I, too, have seen something of the reduction in transparency in the high seas in various deep sea dives I have made.
In these circumstances, I put it to the House that the Bill as amended is surely substantially better than the one presented to us originally by the Government; because is anybody seriously going to tell me that a £5,000 maximum fine for this offence was adequate for those who deliberately, for those who consciously, for those who by choice and not of necessity, for those who wantonly, damage the marine environment, with its threat to the livelihood of inshore fishermen, with its risks to public health, with its defilement of amenity value, and even with its long-term contamination of the sea?
I will end as I began, by reminding hon. Members of the vested interest we all have in the wellbeing of the environment that sustains us. Apart from ourselves, we also have an obligation to future generations, to leave them with our natural resources not impoverished and exhausted but preserved and so far as possible augmented. The oceans offer us the hope that we can fulfil that responsibility provided we take adequate steps to safeguard the life and health of the marginal seas around this Island. The Bill is a useful beginning, but I emphasise that it is only a beginning.
I thank the House for its indulgence at this late hour.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: It is always a pleasure for an elder Member to congratulate a maiden speaker. The hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance


Reed) beat a good man. His fluent and lucid speech underlines his worth, and perhaps explains his being where he is now. Speaking as a geographer, I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman and pay tribute to a good oceanographer. I believe that he is that and that he is an acquisition to the House, particularly in debates like this. I am not uttering a time-worn cliché when I say most sincerely that I and all of us who heard him tonight will listen to him again with much pleasure, particularly on this subject.
As a Humberside Member I thank the Minister for his kindness and courtesy in Committee and to us on Humberside. He paid us a visit, when he blessed and dedicated the mother ship which is of enormous value to the fishing fleet in my constituency.
I also want to thank him for what he has done in setting up the emergency measures in the Humber for oil slicks that may develop. The proposal for these originally came from Goole, whose Member, Mr. George Jeger, was a dedicated colleague of ours. We all deplore his passing. I was happy to attempt to do something for my former colleague and for Goole in this matter. The Minister has done more than perhaps he knew at the time, and I thank him for what he did.
We are all happy tonight and speed the Bill on its way. I hope that the Minister will not mind our saying that it is a good Labour Bill. It would have been a good Labour Act but for something that happened on 18th June. We appreciate the Minister's aplomb, modesty, cheerfulness and willing acceptance of the fortunes of war upstairs in Committee.
I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for what I did earlier, when I tried to thank the wooden horse opposite that was so helpful in a collective capacity, not for us to gain some kudos in the Committee but to gain for us all the collective benefit of making sure that we had a deterrent for the villains who cast filth and pollution into the oceans. We are happy to have the £50,000 penalty, and I shall not mention the Amendment which spoke of £100,000. We have made an enormous step forward.
This is in some ways a modest Bill. The Minister said that it was the beginning

of bigger things. I think that he has another Bill on his mind. I do not know how big it is, but I hope that it becomes bigger and bigger as the months go by. I mean this as a compliment: the hon. Gentleman is a modest man and his behaviour upstairs with this modest Bill endeared him to us. Let us hope that he is less modest in future and has a much less modest Bill to help us in our fight against these villians and pirates on the high seas.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: It us unusual to rise with some trepidation after a maiden speaker. Nevertheless I do so following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed). His assurance on the subject of oceanography was astonishing, and I am sure that we all look forward to hearing him again.
I welcome the Bill on behalf of the thousands of seaside holidaymakers and especially those who contribute so much to the prosperity of my constituency. With its increased penalties, it is an indication that the Government are really in earnest in their concern with this aspect of our environment. We can only hope that the Government will be equally successful in their pursuit of all who trangress the provisions of this valuable Bill. Here, as we have heard, lies the rub. It is not easy to detect those responsible for oil discharges and one can only urge the Government to make an all-out effort to ensure that the intention behind the Bill, which is to give as much protection as possible to our shores, is fully realised by every possible means within their power.
Certain provisions apply only to ships registered in the United Kingdom. We would wish that they applied to all vessels using British ports. One knows that there are difficulties, but I hope that the Government will study ways and means of extending the application of the Measure, or a similar Measure, to ships of other nations.
Many people on our North Wales coast have recently been alarmed by the prospect of an oil terminal off the Anglesey coast, and they will be glad to know that the Bill covers that kind of operation and possible oil discharges from it. We have understood that one alternative to


having such a terminal is to have cargoes transferred to smaller vessels off our shores, with all the risks attendant upon such operations. Indeed, a great deal of this kind of transferring has been going on in Liverpool Bay recently, apparently successfully and without discharges into the sea.
Nevertheless, there has been occasional pollution of our beaches in the area. But we cannot be sure of its source. The Bill rightly tries to tackle the problem of the source aboard ship. More has to be done—and I have detected the feeling in the House—to trace back pollution from the beaches, whenever it appears. We have heard—and I can confirm it myself—that it is now possible to identify individual cargoes of oil by their chemical composition, to fingerprint each cargo, as it were, and one hopes that before long it will be possible to trace every discharge that occurs to the ship that caused it, so that we shall not be entirely dependent on the evidence of oil records maintained by the ships' masters.
The Bill, to sum up, is an earnest of the Government's concern about oil pollution and the Government are to be congratulated upon it. It is limited in its scope to ships registered with the United Kingdom. Let us hope that it will be an example to other countries. It will be difficult, we know, to implement the Bill effectively but I urge the Government to use all the scientific techniques available to trace pollution to its sources and to prosecute those responsible for oil discharges. I echo what has been said—that the Bill is a good beginning to reform. Let us hope that it is not an end.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I rise, again with trepidation at a late hour, but gladly, first to welcome the Bill and, secondly, humbly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed). If the speeches of other hon. Members were half as enlightening as his, what a magnificent Chamber this would be! It is rare to find a speech seemingly so short because it was so enlightening and educational.
I should like to welcome the Bill particularly on behalf of the ornithological public whom the Bill will especially benefit. I refer to the problem of oil

pollution as it has affected the sea bird population around our coasts and more especially the sea bird population in the Irish Sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) has referred to the possibility of the development of an oil terminal on Anglesey. We already have evidence of what occurs with the development of the oil terminal at Milford Haven.
I believe that the severe penalties that the Minister has so wisely, after Amendment, sought to impose will help to alleviate the problem, and the problem is severe. The statistics of the populations of the auk family of sea birds, that is, the little auk, the black and white guillemot, the gannet, the razorbill and puffin, show the most catastrophic decline in numbers, particularly in the last five years and especially in the Irish Sea.
It has been noted that last summer there was an overall decline of 47 per cent. in the number of guillemots which should have returned to their nesting places in the Irish Sea. I am not suggesting that this is due entirely to oil pollution, but it was certainly a contributory factor. Likewise, there has been a decline of 27 per cent. in the number of razorbills and an 18 per cent. decline in both combined in the colonies to the north, that is, further from the oil terminals.
This is a problem of the utmost seriousness. The information from which these statistics have been gained comes, ironically enough, from the "Torrey Canyon" Appeal contribution to the Wild Life Fund and the R.S.P.B. and it is significant that money subscribed by the public in response to a disaster as cataclysmic as the "Torrey Canyon" should have gone to analysing the problem.
We have been promised new legislation and that promise is welcome. The Bill is an earnest of the Government's intent in this matter. Much more work must be done in locating and detecting oil slicks. Secondly, more work must be done in clearing up the menace, not only in areas where amenities are affected, holiday areas for example, but areas where wild life is directly concerned and for which there is no provision under present legislation.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. It has been a pleasure to work in a small


way with the Minister and to be associated with hon. Members as expert as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East. It has been particularly salutary that places as far apart as Bolton, East and Bradford, West, on either side of the land-locked Pennines should take an interest in this admirable Bill.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Grant: My first task is the very pleasant duty of offering my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) on his maiden speech. I must say that I was rather surprised when he said that it was to be a maiden speech, because we recall his addressing us with remarkable fluency and confidence in Standing Committee. I envied the skill with which he addressed the House on this first occasion and on the way in which he positively dazzled us with science. It is clear that he will be a formidable debater in future. The best that I can wish him is that I hope that he will be as happy in this House as I have always been.
This has been an interesting, useful and helpful debate, as all debates on the Bill have been. I should like to express my appreciation for the welcome that it has received from both sides of the House. During the Second Reading hon. and right hon. Members opposite claimed that the Bill was theirs. I am glad to acknowledge the part played by the previous Administration in preparing and introducing the Bill. This is a happy degree of unanimity which, I have no doubt, will not always be reflected in my activities.
The degree of interest aroused by the Bill reflects the strength of feeling about oil pollution, as about other threats to the environment. Examples of oil pollution have been in the public eye while the Bill has been before the House and in our debates and elsewhere proposals have been made for measures to combat the threat to our beaches and seas. Not all ideas are practical but I welcome the thought that has been given to the problem. My Department is giving a great deal of thought to finding the best ways of making rapid and effective progress in an area fraught with complexity. We will look carefully at any idea put forward.
Our debates have been wide-ranging and they have provided plenty of food for thought, but the object of the Bill is limited. It deals only with one aspect of the pollution problem. I should like to reiterate the importance which the Government attach to it and to its speedy passage into law. Its central purpose is to enable us to accept and bring into force the amendments, adopted in October, 1969, to the 1954 Convention. These amendments will make a great improvement. As it stands, the Convention has been useful, but serious weaknesses were apparent. In some respects it is more a statement of good intention than a practical means of control. With amendments it should become a realistic and effective Measure and this is something for which Britain can claim credit because the amendments resulted from a British initiative. The proposals we made resulted from fruitful collaboration between Government and industry, and I am confident that they take full account of the practical aspects of the operation of ships. They will give us a control which the industry can comply with, using modern techniques, which the Government can enforce, and which is capable of putting a stop to the nuisance caused by deliberate discharges of oily wastes.
I have stressed that the purpose of the Bill is limited. Other means are necessary to deal with other aspects of oil pollution such as the threat of accidents to large tankers, and we are advancing on a number of fronts at once in this respect. One of these concerns the important question of civil liability for compensation. I repeat the assurance which I gave in Committee, that we shall shortly be introducing a Bill which will give us the powers needed to ratify the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969. It will substantially improve the position of the claimant who has suffered damage as a result of an oil pollution incident or incurred expense in cleaning up the spillage of oil. This will be another step along what I regard as the right road.
Our next task, on which we are already working, will be to make the necessary regulations to bring the various parts of the Bill into force. Some of these, such as the Sections dealing with penalties and the defences available to those


charged with offences, can be brought into effect as soon as the Bill is on the Statute Book. We shall lose no time in doing this. Others, particularly those which apply the amended Convention to British ships, will require more time. There will need to be discussions with the shipping industry and other interests on the details. We must give careful thought to the instructions to be issued to my Department's surveyors who will have the task of enforcing the revised provisions. A new manual for masters of ships will have to be published by the time the Regulations come into force. I hope that all this work will be completed in time to bring the Regulations into force before the end of the year.
But good law and diligent enforcement are not in themselves adequate to beat the menace of oil pollution. However good our detection arrangements, the fly-by-night oil slickers—if I may borrow the colourful phrase coined by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason)—will still find ways to evade the law and escape detection. I believe that these are in a minority and that their number will decline both as a result of the amended Convention and through the pressure of public opinion—that pressure of public opinion which, as we know from the Standing Committee, sometimes had a certain traumatic effect upon myself.
But, at the end of the day, the complete avoidance of oil pollution, barring accidents, cannot be achieved without the full and willing co-operation of the owners, officers and crew of every vessel. We shall continue our efforts, both nationally and internationally, to bring home to all concerned with the operation of ships that pollution of the sea by oil is one threat to man's environment which, with reasonable care and a determination to follow the best operating procedures at all times, can and must be eliminated.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE (POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS)

11.6 p.m.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I beg to move,
That the Civil Defence (Posts and Telecommunications) Regulations, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.
The purpose of the Regulations is simple, and I hope that, at this late hour, I shall not need to detain the House for more than a few minutes. The Regulations continue the policy of successive Governments and they are, I hope, entirely uncontroversial.
The Post Office, when it was a Government Department, undertook at its own expense, that is, at the expense of the Post Office Fund which then existed, various measures to secure the maintenance of essential public services in the event of hostile attack. The Post Office Act, 1969, changed the status of the Post Office to that of a public authority; it was put on the same footing as other nationalised industries. It was then recognised by the Government of the day that it was essential in the public interest that a Minister should be in a position to oblige the Post Office to undertake necessary work of this sort and to reimburse it—an arrangement which prevails in respect of other nationalised industries.
These Regulations achieve those ends by giving the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications of the day power to obtain from the Post Office reports about work which is being done, and power to require the Post Office to take such measures as he may specify and to pay grants in respect of that work. The present level of reimbursement which is fixed by the Treasury for other nationalised industries for work of this sort is just over 50 per cent., and these Regulations apply the same rate to the Post Office.
I hope that this brief explanation will suffice to enable the House to approve the Regulations.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: As the right hon. Gentleman said, the purpose of the Regulations is uncontroversial, and they are accepted by this side of the House, but I have one or two


questions to put. One of them is faintly legal, but I am sure that the Minister will have the answer.
I have looked at the Act under which the Regulations are made. As with various other pieces of delegated legislation coming before the House from time to time, it is necessary to look at about three Acts of Parliament at one and the same moment in order to ascertain what the Regulations are designed to do. I am sure that there is an answer to the conundrum which my researches have raised—perhaps it is just that I have not been able to find it—and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, or those advising him, will be able to produce it straight away.
The Regulations are made under Section 6 of the 1948 Act. That gives the Minister a discretion to bring again into force by Regulation the provisions of the Civil Defence Acts of 1939. We are then thrown back to the 1939 Act, which clearly applies to what is referred to as "public utility undertakers". "Public utility undertakers" are defined in the Act as
any persons authorised by any enactment or order to construct, work or carry on any railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, gas, electricity or water undertaking …
The one thing not contained in that definition is the magic words "Post Office" I am sure that somewhere the Post Office has been made a public utility undertaking for the purpose of the Civil Defence Act, 1939. I notice that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) is in the course of trying to discover which enactment made it so. I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman could answer this point.
The second point which arises from the Act and which I hope is of perhaps greater substance and weight than the purely legal point is this. The Civil Defence Acts of 1939 and 1948 specifically do not apply to Northern Ireland. What is the position concerning Northern Ireland under these Regulations? If there was one part of the United Kingdom in which this power of the Minister would be important and thoroughly desirable for the Post Office Corporation to tell the right hon. Gentleman what it would do in the event of civil conflict to

try to maintain its existing powers and services, I should have thought it would be Northern Ireland.
In substance, the Regulations seem to be eminently sensible, but as there is provision in the Regulations for the Minister to make payments
out of monies provided by Parliament towards the approved expenses of the Post Office",
Perhaps it would be as well if, first, he gave the statutory authority for it, and, secondly, we discovered whether the Regulations apply to Northern Ireland.
There is one small point. Paragraph 5(1) of the Regulations provides that:
The Minister may pay out of monies provided by Parliament towards the approved expenses of the Post Office in taking measures … to secure the due functioning of its undertaking in the event of hostile attack grants not exceeding fifty-two and three quarters per centum of those expenses".
Why 52¾ per cent.? I am sure that there is a very good reason for it, but for the life of me I do not know what it is.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Chataway: These are not the easiest of questions which the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) puts to me at this hour.
I will check this, but I understand that, since the main Act does not apply to Northern Ireland, it was not possible to make the Regulations apply to Northern Ireland.
On the first point, I am advised—and it is fortunate that I have advisers and that there is an adequate communications system between me and those advisers—that Section 36(1) of Schedule 4 of the Post Office Act, 1969, lays down that
As from the appointed day, the authority shall be deemed to be public utility undertakers and its undertaking a public utility undertaking for the purposes of the provisions of the Civil Defence Act, 1939, other than …
certain paragraphs. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that all is well in that respect.
The figure of 52¾ per cent. has been arrived at by the Treasury in relation to not only the Post Office but other nationalised industries as a fair proportion for the Government to pay in respect of work of this description which is undertaken. Some of the work which is undertaken by the Post Office, as by other


nationalised industries in this connection, will be of value to its day-to-day working. Therefore, it would not be right that that should be subject to grant from the Government. There must obviously be discretion in this, and, no doubt, past Administrations have been involved in it. I gather that the figure is acceptable to the Post Office, and it is the same figure which is applied to other undertakings, and so I hope it will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Richard: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would say a little more about Northern Ireland. He is quite right, as a matter of law, that if the Act does not apply to Northern Ireland he cannot make Regulations to apply to Northern Ireland, but is it his intention to introduce legislation in respect of Northern Ireland which would give him, as Minister, the same powers in relation to the Post Office in Northern Ireland as he has in relation to the Post Office in England? Northern Ireland is one part of the United Kingdom where, I should have thought, it would be important that these powers should be exercised at this time.

Mr. Chataway: These powers relate to a situation in which the country is subject to attack from hostile Powers. That is the situation envisaged. It is in the event of a major attack that these kinds of provisions really are necessary. As the Act does not apply to Northern Ireland and these Regulations do not apply to Northern Ireland, clearly I should be trespassing upon your good will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to go far along the lines the hon. Gentleman invites me to go this evening, but I will certainly consider the point he has raised, and, if I may, write to him about it subsequently.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Civil Defence (Posts and Telecommunications) Regulations, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Clegg.]

Orders of the Day — TRACTOR SAFETY CABS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to a very real problem which agriculture is facing at this moment through the cost of safety cabs and the lack of freedom farmers have to choose the type of safety cab they require, and to bring before the House the attitude of the manufacturers to this problem. Legislation was passed by this House to make compulsory the fitting of safety cabs to tractors, and, of course, safety is of paramount importance, and I hope that nothing I say tonight will detract from the importance of seeing that the toll of injury and death is reduced, but when we passed the legislation no one in this House, I am certain, thought that through the legislation there would be an increase of 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. in the cost of tractors.
The present position in agriculture is very serious. Costs are rising very fast. It is, therefore, all the more disgraceful and unfortunate that some manufacturers should take advantage of the legislation and increase the cost of tractors by up to, in one instance, £240, when it is quite possible to buy a safety cab for much less money—in the region of £80 to £90. Whatever manufacturers say in their own defence, I believe they are taking advantage of the present situation. I believe they saw a means of increasing their profits. I am speaking very frankly tonight. This is a mean and unpleasant exploitation of the agricultural industry. I have no hesitation in condemning one firm in giving the lead, and that is the Ford Motor Company, this large organisation which builds so many of our tractors. We in agriculture will not forget this action.
With all the complaints that farmers make about any Government that is in power, I wonder what they would have said if the Government had introduced legislation which resulted in an increased cost of £240 for each farmer. They would have screamed, and rightly so. Yet companies like Fords are doing exactly that. Some firms are being fair about


this. John Dear and the manufacturers of the imported tractor Zetor have played fair.
Agriculture looks to the Minister for help. The Minister is aware of the problem. In a sense the tractor manufacturer have given the Minister the brush-off. When the Minister says that it is not much use having further discussions with the Tractor Manufacturers' Association, it seems to me that the association cares little either for the industry or for what the Minister says, and this is serious. I hope that the Minister will be able to say how he will help the industry with this problem.
What do we want? We simply want freedom to put on a tractor the cab of our choice. Yes, even a very expensive cab if the farmer desires this. Some manufacturers wish to install in cabs radios and even earmuffs. That is fair enough if some farmers wish to have them. Farmers have every right to install whatever they wish, but they equally have the right to have fitted a very simple safety cab or bar to comply with the law. Legislation has been brought in to make compulsory the fitting of safety belts on cars, but at least the car owner has the right to fit the sort of safety belt which suits his need.
One only has to read the Farmer and Stockbreeder and the Farmers' Weekly to see how annoyed farmers are with the way in which tractor manufacturers have taken advantage of this legislation. Farmers have the remedy of simply not buying Ford tractors until Fords take up a more reasonable and helpful attitude. This is the course which farmers could and should take in present circumstances.
The restrictive policy of the manufacturers has the effect of increasing the price of safety cabs and means that farmers cannot choose the type of safety cab they need. The owner-occupier who wants just a plain tractor is denied the right to have it. What about the transference of a cab to a new tractor in a year or two's time? Must the farmer always buy a new cab? What about the export of second-hand tractors? Many countries do not wish to have cabs on their tractors, and this could mean a possible loss in the export of secondhand tractors. It could also mean that tractors will no longer be exported to the

United States. I have evidence to show that this is one of the reasons why the Ford Motor Company does not want the farmers to have the advantage of being able to choose the cab they require or like. Surely the Minister believes in competition and freedom of choice. If this is allowed, I believe it will enable the best possible designs to reach the market at the most economic price.
This is a serious problem and is a matter of principle. This is the reason I have brought the matter before the House tonight. I believe that the attitude of some manufacturers is "This will all blow over; it is a five or six weeks wonder and then those who are complaining probably will forget all about it." However, I do not think the agricultural industry will forget the attitude of certain tractor manufacturers in the present situation. I believe those manufacturers have been unfair, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he has been able to make some progress in resolving the problem.
I hope that in future a simple safety cab or bar will be produced which will comply with the legislation and which will not be too expensive. I hope that we will receive from the Minister a full reply.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I am delighted to take this opportunity to support the able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). I consider that the action of the tractor manufacturers is utterly inexplicable and out of character. The manufacture of tractors is an important part of British industry. It is an industry which is constantly seeking to improve its product. It is forward looking, it is aware of the changing needs of its customers, and is constantly trying to find out what its customers require. It has a fine export record and has done a great deal of its own free will to improve the safety of tractors. It is in the forefront of British industry. But, in the end, its profit and success depend now, as always, on a large and satisfied home market. It is the British farmers who under-write and nurture the tractor manufacturers. Yet now it is these tractor manufacturers who, by their mean and petty action, have chosen to bite the hands that feed them.
Let nobody think that their insistence on selling their own cabs is inexpensive. My hon. Friend has quoted the example of the Ford Motor Company. I would remind the House of a reply which I received from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to a Question that I put down on 8th December last. I asked what estimate the Minister of Agriculture had made of the increases in cost to farmers as a result of the introduction of tractor safety cabs. The reply was:
No estimate is possible of the precise immediate increase in costs to farmers, but the additional capital costs of purchasing tractors with safety frames might be of the order of £3 million at current prices in a full year.
The important part is this:
If manufacturers were to continue to refuse to supply tractors unless they are fitted with their own cabs, a further £2 million in a full year might be involved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 62.]
That further £2 million is the degree of exploitation which the tractor manufacturers are setting upon the farming industry. There is no excuse for this extra burden. After all, it is the dealer or agent, and not the manufacturer, who is responsible under Regulations for fitting cabs.
Nor can the manufacturers claim that manufacture for export is aided or simplified by their action, because I believe that tractors for export, even if ordered with cabs, are sent abroad with the cabs unattached, to save shipping costs. Why, then, have manufacturers taken the action that they have over cabs?
There is only one conclusion that one can draw: they are using these Regulations for a purpose for which they were not designed—to feather their own nests. In so doing, they are doing an injustice to farmers, in particular to independent cab manufacturers, and they are doing considerable harm to their own good name and reputation. I trust that, if they are not prepared to untarnish their own record, the Government will be able to do it for them.

11.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) has made this subject peculiarly

his own. This no doubt stems from the occasion when he welcomed the tractor cab Regulations on behalf of the Opposition. He is also well known as one who is interested in fighting tenaciously for the freedom of individuals in many spheres.
There is nothing that I would contradict or refute in what my hon. Friends have said in describing this sorry saga. As the House knows, I had a meeting with representatives of the tractor manufacturers on 10th November, 1970. We explored this question in depth and at length, but my views and theirs appeared to be as far apart at the end of the discussions as they were when we began.
Since then there have been Questions asked and answered in this House, followed by a full and frank account of things tonight. Within the last few days I have discussed the matter with officers of the unions representing the agricultural workers, and I should like to place on record the understanding which they have shown of this situation, and of the helpful suggestions which they have put to me. I have also asked for and received the views of the National Farmers' Unions of England and Scotland, and these have been equally helpful.
I do not want, and neither do my right hon. Friends, to be compelled to ask the House to change the Regulations. For one thing we supported them when they were introduced, and their basic aim which is that no farm worker shall drive a tractor without an approved cab or frame has our wholehearted support.
I propose, therefore, to invite the tractor manufacturers, now that they have been made aware of the views which have been expressed here and elsewhere, to discuss the matter again with my right hon. Friend and myself. If they will allow their dealers to fit to their tractors a frame or a cab of the type, quality and price which the buyer of the tractor wants—and let me repeat that all types of frames or cabs must carry the approval of my right hon. Friends through the agency of their safety inspectors, before they can be marketed—then we shall not require to take up the time of the House with amending legislation. If, however, they insist on maintaining their present attitude, then we shall be obliged to do so.
More people are killed on farms, when tractors without safety frames turn over, than from any other single cause. But all experience, both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, proves that a properly constructed and fitted safety cab or frame reduces the risk of death or serious injury almost to zero. It is, therefore, a matter for serious concern that so much difficulty has arisen since the Regulations came into force.
Given the maximum possible freedom of choice, I am certain that the farming community would willingly have accepted the tractor cab Regulations; recognising—as I am sure most farmers do—the paramount importance of protecting not only the lives of their employees, but their own lives and those of members of their families. Unfortunately, this freedom of choice hardly exists.
Although firms outside the tractor manufacturing industry make a variety of cabs which have been approved by both Agriculture Departments for the most popular models of tractor, the principal tractor manufacturers in Great Britain either require their dealers or agents to fit only a cab of which they themselves approve or they supply to their dealers only tractors with a cab of their own already fitted.
But the independent manufacturers of cabs and frames can offer a much wider choice to the consumer in terms of his preferences—for example, whether he wants something that can easily be taken off and replaced—and his pocket. I doubt if many people in the industry would disagree with me when I say that Mr. Alex Duncan of Kincardineshire probably knows more about safety frames and cabs than anyone. It is ridiculous that his contribution to safety, and that of people like him who are his competitors, should be limited in any way, when this particular development has got such a long way still to go. The snags concerning sound problems have been mentioned. My right hon. Friends and I are bound to be seriously concerned about the effects of this situation on safety.
If our Regulations are to be fully effective they must be accepted by those to whom they apply. No one, least of

all in the farming community, would quarrel with our objective—that of seeing that a tractor is safe when it leaves the dealer or the agent—but, equally, no one will be satisfied with a Regulation which obliges him to accept the manufacturers' and not his own choice of what he wants.
So long as this is the position, I believe that the Regulations will be doing far less than they should to promote safety because they will deter farmers from investing their often scarce capital in new tractors. Instead, they will go for good second-hand models, which need not, under the Regulations, have new cabs fitted to them.
On 8th December last, I told the House that my right hon. Friends were proposing to examine the Regulations to see whether they could be amended in a way that would maintain competition. This we have now done. I want to make it quite clear that we rejected out of hand the possibility that the Regulations should be totally withdrawn. I also want to say that I have informed all those with whom I have discussed this matter of our determination that, in the event of our being obliged to amend the Regulations, we shall make every effort to see that the law, as it would then be, is enforced against any farmer who is found breaking it; and I have been assured of the full co-operation of the various organisations involved.
My right hon. Friends and I very much hope that the tractor manufacturers will, even now, think again. Their present policies have been rejected by their customers as unfairly restricting their freedom of choice to get what they want at the price they want to pay.
My hon. Friend has referred to the Answer I gave him about the cost as between frames and cabs. We cannot sit by and be silent witnesses to costs being forced up in this way at a time when costs are already rising so alarmingly in the face of the farming community.
The views of the manufacturers have been rejected by the Government as discouraging farmers from buying new and safe tractors. I cannot believe that the manufacturers find this isolation enjoyable, and I hope that they will see that


it is in their own, and everyone else's interest, to end it. I can assure them that I am only too anxious to meet them in order to work out how we can improve freedom of choice and increase competition. This is the course that I should much prefer to the alternative of having to amend the Regulations in the only way possible if our objectives are to be secured; namely, by removing from Regulation No. 4 the provision which makes it an offence to sell a tractor
… unless it is properly fitted with a safety cab.
But I can assure the manufacturers that this is a remedy which we are ready to pursue, albeit with reluctance.

Mr. John Wells: If my hon. Friend should be looking again at Regulation No. 4, will he consider the problem of the orchards and particularly the hop garden user who is using a tractor entirely on level or nearly level ground, in which case the Regulation is merely an unnecessary extra cost?

Mr. Stodart: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the case of hop gardens there is already an escape Regulation—

Mr. Wells: And orchards.

Mr. Stodart: —and I am perfectly ready to examine other parts of the Regulations at the same time.
As I have said, we have discussed the matter with the farming unions and with the unions which represent the workers. On the part of each we have found a very ready appreciation of the difficulties and a ready understanding of the reasons that might force us to take the only remedy open to us. But, as I have indicated, the remedy is a pretty drastic one.
Therefore, I hope that the manufacturers will believe me when I say: "I shall be very ready to meet you at any time."

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.